- (1.) Order on Civil Misc. Correction Application 321164 of 2010.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and perused the record.
(3.) This application has been filed by the applicant- petitioner for correction of the order dated 26.10.2010 by mentioning P.A. Case No. 27 of 1988 in place of P.A. Case No. 27 of 1998. The order dated 26.10.2010 is as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This matter has come earlier also in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19029 of 2008 : Rajendra Kishore & others v. Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 & others in which the Court after considering the controversy in detail has passed the following order:- "After considering the submissions made on behalf of parties, I am of view that admittedly Suit No. 319 of 1982 is still pending for consideration between the parties whether the petitioners are the owners or respondent and the person who is holding a better title. Unless and until that is decided, releasing a shop or declaring a vacancy, in my opinion, will not be appropriate in the interest of justice to give possession to one of the parties, which still has not yet been decided that who is the owner and landlord of the property in question. In suit No. 800 of 2003, similar application filed by petitioners under Section 10 of the Act, the proceeding was stayed. But in this case on a an objection made by respondents, it was held that it is not necessary to stay the proceedings in spite of the fact that all the courts including this Court has given an opinion that the matter be de- cided after the decision of Suit No. 319 of 1982. In such situation, I am of the opinion that revisional court was not justified in rejecting the application. The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by revisional court dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 15 to writ petition) is hereby quashed. It is made clear that now the proceeding will be initiated or decided after the decision of Suit No. 319 of 1982. As this has been informed that this Court has already directed the court below to decide the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5 of 2006 within a period of six months, therefore, there is no necessity to pass any affirmative order in this writ petition to this extent. No order as to costs." It appears from the record that Suit No. 319 of 1982 regarding title is still pending, therefore, petitioner may not be directly affected by the impugned order dated 17.9.2010, appended as Annexure-13 to the writ petition as the Court has only directed for hearing of the case. However, the order passed above, may affect the right of the petitioner on final hearing of the release application which is pending before this Court. If the matter is released a fluid situation will arise as to who is the landlord. Suit of title is still pending. There have been many litigations with regard to matter of title.;