Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.8.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and the order dated 25.6.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class.
(2.) The facts of the case as given in the writ petition are that a suit No. 873 of 1996 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by the respondents No. 4 to 9 first set impleading Kapildeo Tiwari and Sriniwas Tiwari as defendants. The Gaon Sabha was also impleaded as defendant No. 3 and the State of Uttar Pradesh as defendant No. 4. In the aforesaid suit a decree for declaration was claimed that the plaintiffs be declared bhumidhars along with the defendants first set. The petitioner and respondents 2nd set claimed that they have taken a sale deed from said Kapildeo Tiwari and Sriniwas Tiwari of the land in dispute on 19.4.1996. They claimed to be impleaded in the said suit which was allowed on 30.8.1999. They also claimed to have filed written statement in the first suit. Subsequently another suit was filed by the respondents 4 to 9 impleading the petitioner and respondents No. 10 to 17 as defendants first set claiming reliefs. In the aforesaid suit it was stated in the plaint that the defendants first set have obtained the sale deed by putting up some impostor and the said sale deed was fictitious. It was claimed that on the basis of the said sale deed the names of the defendants first set cannot be entered. The relief claimed in the aforesaid suit included the declaration of bhumid-hari right along with Kapildeo Tiwari and Sriniwas Tiwari. In the alternative it was stated that even if the sale deed could be executed it can be with regard to share of Kapildeo Tiwari and Sriniwas Tiwari is not entitled to be mutated. By relief (b) it is claimed that if the defendants first set are found in possession on the basis of the said fictitious sale deed then they should be dispossessed according to the shares of the plaintiffs. The petitioner filed an application on 20.4.2001 for stay of proceedings of the second suit No. 199 of 1998-99. The said application was rejected by the Assistant Collector on 25.6.2001 with the finding that the subject matter of both the suits are not the same. The Assistant Collector also noted that although the petitioner claimed that they have taken sale deed from Kapildeo Tiwari and Sriniwas Tiwari but the respondents No. 4 to 9 denied the said sale deed. The petitioner went up in revision. The said revision has been rejected by the Commissioner by his order dated 3.8.2001. Against both the aforesaid orders the petitioner has come up before this Court.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties of both the suits are same and the properties in dispute is also same and the reliefs which have been claimed are substantially the same hence the second suit ought to have been stayed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the first suit the petitioner has also been impleaded and he has filed written statement therein. The petitioner has stated that the amendment can be made in the first suit for the reliefs which are being claimed in the second suit. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Jagdhar and another v. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banda and another, 1999 (37) ALR 272. He has further submitted that the orders of the courts below are erroneous, by rejecting the application as the multiplicity of the proceedings will increase.;