Meharaj Masih vs Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association

Deepak Gupta, J.—The aforesaid two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved in the same. The main

2 contention raised by Sh. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner(s) is that the question as to which individual(s) legally represent the Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (ADTA) and the Indian Church Trustees Association (ICTA) are the matters which are substantially in issue in RFA No. 2567 of 1992 pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. He, therefore, prays that the suits out of which these two petitions arise and in which also the same question(s) has been raised by the parties should be stayed.

There is no manner of doubt that this question is common to the proceedings before this Court as well as in the RFA pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the fact is that the present Petitioner Meharaj Masih is not a party in the proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Section 10 of the CPC is applicable only when the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. In the present case, it cannot be said that the parties are the same.

Furthermore, I am of the considered view that there are other substantial issues involved in this case. The question whether Sh. Gopal Krishan and Patres Masih had any authority or right to transfer or lease out the property of the trust is not a question which is the subject matter of dispute in the RFA pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In fact, the main dispute in this case is "whether these two persons had the authority to transfer the property of the trust or not?" The second dispute as to who controls the trust is only an ancillary question raised in the petitions.

Both the petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.