- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The opposite party filed the suit against the revisionist, which is numbered 267/85 pending in the Court of the Xth Additional District Judge, Agra. The revisionist moved an application (130-C) under Section 10 read with Sec tion 151 CPC for stay of the Suit till the decision of the pending appeals No. 361/98 and 379/99 arising out of suits Nos. 551/82 and 518/82. The application was opposed by objections 136-C. The Additional District Judge considered the arguments and has rejected the application for stay of suit under Sections 10 and 151 CPC. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Murlidhar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the op posite party and have perused the record. The present Suit No. 267/85 is a very old suit pending since 1985 in which the relief of eviction of the revisionist from the disputed premises and for recovery of damages have been sought. The suit was filed after the termination of the licence. Request made by the defendant-revisionist was for stay of suit till the dis posal of the appeal filed against the decision of suits stay of suit till the disposal of the appeal filed against the decision of Suits Nos. 518/82 and 551/82. Copy of the plaint of suit No. 518/82 is Annexure-4 to the affidavit and this suit was filed by the revisionist against the opposite party. The relief sought in the suit is that the opposite party be restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the shop in dispute either by withholding supply of electricity etc. or obstructing access of the applicant or his employees to the shop in dispute. Issue was framed in the suit is whether the applicant is tenant or a licen cee of the shop in dispute. Copy of the plaint of Suit No. 551/82 is Annexure-5 of the affidavit. This suit was also filed by he revisionist against the opposite party and four other persons. The relief sought in the suit was for in junc tion restraining the opposite parties to permit any other person to exhibit for sale or sell within the Hotel premises any of the articles which are being sold by the revisionist in Hotel Mughal Sheraton, Agra. Both the suits were decided by com mon judgment, dated 15-9-1998 (An-nexure-3 of the affidavit) and appeals against the same as mentioned above, are pending. It is contended that in both suits, the point for decision is whether the applicant was the licence or tenant in the shop of dispute and issue on this point was framed.
(3.) THE suits were decided by a com mon judgment, dated 15-9-1998. Copy of the judgment is Annexure- 3. THE judg ment show that it has been held that the applicant is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed irrespective of the fact whether he is tenant or licence of the shop in dis pute as he is in the possession of the shop and carrying on business. Therefore, it appears from the judgment that the question whether the applicant is tenant or a licencee in the shop in dispute is not involved in view the relief claimed in those suit and is not acquired to be decided. The plaintiff applicant was found entitled to the relief in Suit No. 518/82 only on the basis of the fact that he is in possession of the shop in dispute and he is carrying on business. The other Suit No. 551/82 was dismissed.;