GARG, J. - (1.) HEARD at admission stage.
(2.) THE petitioner-defendant has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 8. 12. 2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 3. 1. 1997 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur, by which the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Section 151 C. P. C. by which a prayer was made that since the defendant-petitioner had filed an interpleader suit against the respondent No. 1 (Smt. Chandrakala) and 8 others, therefore, till decision of that suit, the present suit No. 531/1993 pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (respondent No. 2) be stayed was rejected, be quashed and set aside. It may be stated here that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for rent and ejectment on the ground of first default in the court of Additional Civil Judge (respondent No. 2) and that suit was registered as civil suit No. 531/1993. Further case of the petitioner-defendant is that husband of respondent No. 1 had rented out the suit premises consisting of an office, two rooms, one hall, latrine, bath room, kitchen and roof on a monthly rent of Rs. 80 to the petitioner-defendant and since husband of respondent No. 1 executed a will in her favour on 3. 1. 78, therefore, after his death, the suit premises became her property and the defendant-petitioner became the tenant of respondent No. 1. Further case of the petitioner-defendant is that she had filed a interpleader suit (Annex. 1) against the respondent No. 1 and eight other persons on the ground that the petitioner- defendant had taken the suit premises on rent from Inder Singh and after his death, a suit had been filed by the respondent No. 1 claiming herself to be the owner of suit premises and it was also submitted in the interpleader suit that a suit had also been filed against the petitioner-defendant and her husband by one Shri Deepak Kumar S/o late Shri Inder Singh alleging that he is the sole owner of the suit premises and further another suit was filed by Shri Shanti Lal S/o Shri Inder Singh and therefore, since three suits have been filed separately by two sons and the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and her husband, therefore, the interpleader suit was filed by the defendant- petitioner to declare as to who is the owner/landlord of the suit premises and as to whom rent is required to be paid. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner- defendant filed an application (Annex. 2) on 24. 11. 1995 before the respondent No. 2 (Additional Civil Judge) requesting him to stay the proceeding of the suit pending against the petitioner.
(3.) THE respondent No. 2 (Additional Civil Judge) vide his order dtd. 3. 1. 1997 (Annex. 3) dismissed the application inter alia holding that since the present suit was for eviction on the ground of default, therefore, the matter pertains to land-lord and tenant and such type of suit should not be stayed on the ground of filing of interpleader suit. Aggrieved from the order dtd. 3. 1. 1997 (Annex. 3), this writ petition has been filed. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dtd. 3. 1. 1997 (Annex. 3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (respondent No. 2) is contrary to the provisions of Order 35 Rule 3 C. P. C. and when interpleader suit was filed by the defendant- petitioner, further proceedings in the present suit should have been stayed. ;