Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) By way of present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana dated 28.10.2005 vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 10 CPC for stay of suit has been dismissed.
(2.) It is pleaded that the petitioner is a licensee of the Government of India whereby the license has been granted to it under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for Punjab Circle. As per the conditions of licence, the petitioner is entitled to instal towers. In the process, the petitioner decided to instal a tower in Ludhiana at 4/100 Block -J BRS Nagar, Ludhiana, a dwelling unit owned by Shri Kulbhushan Sharma. The site in question was taken by the petitioner on lease. It is further submitted that after getting the permission from the authorities, the petitioner started work for installation of the tower. Respondents No. 1 and 2 along with two other persons filed suit for permanent injunction against the owner of the building from whom the petitioner had taken the premises on lease, restraining him from installing tower on his building. Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for interim stay was also filed. The interim injunction prayed for by the respondents No. 1 and 2 was declined by the trial Court vide order dated 22.8.2005. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed another suit impleading, the petitioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana as the respondents praying for grant of permanent injunction against the present petitioner, for installing the tower and further for restraining the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the present petition from giving any permission for installation of the tower. After receipt of notice of the subsequent suit, the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 10 CPC for stay of the subsequent suit. The application was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 and vide impugned order dated 28.10.2005, prayer made by the petitioner was declined and this order is impugned in the present petition.
(3.) I have heard Shri Pankaj Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tajender Joshi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and with their assistance have gone through the impugned order and other documents on record.;