Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed challenging orders dated 04.05.2016 and 05.10.2016 passed by the Small Causes Court, Jhansi in S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012 and Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Jhansi in Civil Revision No. 14 of 2016 respectively.
(2.) By order dated 04.05.2016, the application 78 C of the defendant-petitioners to stay further proceeding of S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012 in exercise of power under Sections 10 and 151 C.P.C., has been rejected whereas by order dated 05.10.2016, the revision preferred against the order dated 04.05.2016 has been dismissed.
(3.) The petitioners are defendants in S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012 which was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, based on landlord-tenant relationship, for arrears of rent and eviction. From the plaint of S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012, which is on record as Annexure 1 to the petition, it appears that the suit was instituted on 26.07.2012. The plaintiff-respondent instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012 claiming ownership under sale-deed dated 09.10.1995 executed by Smt. Shanti Devi and Vinod Kumar Seth. It was claimed that the defendants had received knowledge of the sale deed on 15.12.2010 in proceedings of Original Suit No. 272 of 2002 between Daya Shanker and Suman. From Annexure No.1 to the supplementary-affidavit, which is copy of plaint of O.S. No.620 of 2012, it appears that the defendant-petitioners had instituted Original Suit No. 620 of 2012 against plaintiff-respondents on 26.09.2012 for declaring the sale-deed dated 09.10.1995 void. Subsequently, in proceeding of S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012, an application was moved by the defendant-petitioners for returning the plaint to a competent court having jurisdiction to decide title of immovable property, under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, which came to be rejected by order dated 03.07.2013 and against the said order a revision was filed which was also dismissed. Thereafter, application 78 C was filed by the defendant-petitioners for staying the proceeding of S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012 on the ground that in case the saledeed dated 09.10.1995 is canceled by a decree in Original Suit No. 620 of 2012, the plaintiff-respondents of the present suit would have no right to obtain a decree in the present suit, therefore, the present suit proceeding was liable to be stayed under Section 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The trial court by the impugned order dated 04.05.2016 rejected the application by holding that a suit before the Judge Small Causes is a summary suit based on landlord-tenant relationship and as the suit on the original side was instituted after the institution of the summary suit, the proceedings of the summary suit cannot be stayed. The revisional court affirmed the view taken by the trial court by impugned order dated 05.10.2016.;