BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against order dated 7.12.2013 (Annexure P -12) of the lower court vide which application (Annexure P -9) of the applicant -defendant No.4 Narinder Singh, petitioner herein, under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of the suit, was dismissed.
(2.) HEARING has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book.
(3.) BEFORE adjudicating rival claims of the parties in this revision petition, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the facts. There was another litigation wherein defendant No.4 Narinder Singh, petitioner herein, was a party. The said suit was decided on 22.9.1987. First appeal against that judgment was decided on 23.8.1989. Even a Civil Writ Petition No.16335 of 1996 having connection with the said matter was admitted on 28.7.1997. Orders dated 11.8.1998, 14.12.2004 and of 8.8.2009 were also passed and were referred to before the lower court by counsel for the applicantdefendant No.4 to buttress his claim that status -quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained regarding the suit land and appeal filed by both the parties is pending before this Court. In short, it is claimed that since the matter is pending before this Court in the two other litigations, the fresh suit should be stayed. In fact, in the present suit, entries in the revenue record have been challenged including mutation No.734. It is, thus, evidently clear that the lis in litigation in the present suit is entirely different from the earlier litigation. Merely because earlier matter is pending adjudication before this Court ipso facto is no ground to stay proceedings of the fresh suit filed by the respondent on entirely different facts and circumstances. The lower court has very elaborately discussed each and every aspect and has found that the earlier judgment of 22.9.1987 had been passed in favour of the present petitioner, the then plaintiff of a suit filed by him for seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Pritam Singh whereafter appeal preferred by said Pritam Singh against the said judgment, was dismissed. In short, the lower court had come to a firm finding that the parties as also subject matter of the litigation in the earlier suit was not similar to the present case.;