Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Instant writ petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the order impugned dt. 21.04.2009 passed by trial Court and further with the prayer that petitioner's application filed under Sec. 10 CPC be allowed and the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 17/08 pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner may be stayed till decision of the suit.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question is the same which is subject matter of revenue suit pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Bikaner in Revenue Suit No. 349/07 filed by Asu Ram under Sec. 188 of Tenancy Act and another suit filed by Surendra Kumar defendant against Asu Ram, Jeethu Ram and Bheenja Ram under Sec. 112 of Tenancy Act in the Court of S.D.M. North, Bikaner, therefore, till disposal of those suit, the proceedings in the instant civil suit pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner may be stayed. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before decision of the above revenue suits, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondents is required to be stayed because in the revenue suit, first right of Jeethu Ram and Bheenja Ram are required to be determined, thereafter, the suit pending before the Addl. District Judge Bikaner can be decided.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. The Addl. District Judge Bikaner while proceeding under Sec, 10 of CPC vide impugned order dt. 21.04.2009 considered the fact of pending of two revenue suits and prayer made in the revenue suits and the instant suit and found that relief prayed for are altogether different so also the plaintiffs are not party in those revenue suits.;