- (1.) This application is at the instance of the Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and is directed against the order No. 67 dated November 30, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Bankura in Title Suit No. 28 of 2002 thereby dismissing an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(2.) The short fact is that the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 of this title suit and his co-sharers instituted a title suit being Title Suit No. 103 of 1978 before the learned Assistant District Judge against the father of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 praying for a decree of declaration of the title in respect of 'Ka' schedule property and for recovery of possession in respect of 'Kha' schedule property, as described in the schedule of that plaint. In that suit, there were as many as 7 Plaintiffs and 8 Defendants. Subsequently, the Plaintiff, Madan Mohan Daripa son of late Bijay Kumar Daripa instituted a suit against Sumit Nandy and Sukumar Nanday, that is, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 of the earlier suit claiming that the Plaintiff is a monthly tenant in respect of 'ka' schedule property and permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dispossessing him forcibly from the suit properties and other relief's. It may be mentioned herein that 'ka' schedule property of the present suit, that is, Title Suit No. 28 of 2002 was described as 'Kha' schedule property of the earlier suit and that 'Kha' schedule property was the part of the 'Ka' schedule property in the earlier suit. In the said earlier suit, the Plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners in respect of the 'Ka' schedule property of the said suit. That suit was disposed of in favour of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants preferred two appeals. The two appeals were allowed and so, the Plaintiffs of the earlier suit preferred two second appeals and those two appeals are now pending before this Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. For that reason, the heirs of the Plaintiff No. 1 of the earlier suit, that is, Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 of the present suit have prayed for stay of the instant suit till the disposal of the said two second appeals. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(3.) Now, the question is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the said application.;