- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against impugned order dated 28.10.86, Annexure 9 to the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The facts of the case that the petitioner claims to be the son of Nawab Mohammad Noorul Rahman Khan whereas respondent No. 3 claims to be his daughter who alleged that Nawab Mohd. Noorual Rahman Khan left no son when he died on 26.6.76. The petitioner filed a suit No. 184/254/69 before the Assistant Collector, Ist Class for declaration that he is tenure holder of the land in dispute being the son of Nawab Mohd. Noorul Rahman Khan. Respondent No. 3 Bismilla Begum defendant No. l in the said suit contested the suit inter alia alleging that the petitioner is not son of Nawab Mohd. Noorul Rahman Khan. True copy of the plaint is Annexure 1. True copy of written statement of Bismilla is Annexure 2. Two other suits being suit No. 185/2755 and 186/256 were also filed before the same court for declaration under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. These three suits were consolidated and dismissed by Assistant Collector on 23.9.70. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed three revenue appeals which were consolidated and allowed by the learned Addl. Commissioner Meerut on 13.7.73 vide Annexure 3. In this order, the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut held that the petitioner was son of Nawab Mohd. Noorul Rahman Khan and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh on merits on the remaining issues. Against this judgment the respondent No. 3 filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue in which inter alia an objection was raised that Smt. Bismillah Begum has ceased to be an Indian National and that she had become a Pakistani National. True copy of the order of the Central Govt. under Section 9(2) of Citizenship Act, 1955, is Annexure 4 to the petition. The case appears to be still pending before the Board of Revenue and against an interim order passed by the Board, a writ petition being writ petition No. 5799 of 1982 has been filed in this Court which is said to be pending. The Board by order dated 28.11.78 remitted an issue for decision by the trial court as to whether Smt. Bismillah Begum remained an Indian National. Nawab Mohd. Rehman Khan had taken a certain loan from the State Bank of India and had deposited certain valuable ornaments with the respondent No. 4 as security. It is alleged in para 12 of the petition that respondent No. 3 Bismillah Begum applied to the State Bank of India to usurp the said ornaments and wanted to withdraw the same from respondent No. 4 behind the back of the petitioner. When the Bank refused to oblige her she filed original suit No. 227/81 before Munsif City, Saharanpur, true copy of which is Annexure 5 to this petition. The petitioner filed an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC which was allowed on 16.8.82 vide Annexure 7. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for staying the hearing of Suit No. 227 of 1981 till the disposal of the revenue suits. The trial court framed issue No. 14 on this point and by order dated 26.3.84 allowed the said application under Section 10 CPC, thereafter Bank filed Civil Revision No. 166 of 1984 which was allowed by impugned order 28.10.86 vide Annexure 9, hence this petition.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank in which it has been stated that no succession certificate has been filed by Bismillah Begum. Another counter affidavit has been filed by Bismillah Begum. In paragraph 6 of the same it has been stated that the order of Central Government declaring her a Pakistani National is void and against that order a writ petition No. 6599 has been filed in this Court on the ground that the order was passed without giving her opportunity of hearing. In paragraph 9 it is alleged that the District Judge in Suit No. 113 of 1973 held her to be an Indian citizen. True copy of the said judgment is Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. Section 10 CPC states: No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or constituted by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.;