- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by plaintiff/petitioner Hari Singh, who, during its pendency, died and has been substituted by his legal heirs, namely, Anant Pal Singh and Others.
(2.) IN this writ petition, challenge is made to order dated 20.08.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu. The trial court, by aforesaid order, has allowed the application filed by defendant/respondent under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and directed that trial of the suit filed by plaintiff/petitioner, out of which present matter arises, shall remain stayed. The plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit against defendant/respondents for eviction, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. The defendant/respondents, however, contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein primarily it was pleaded that the plaintiff/petitioner was claiming the right over the disputed property on the basis that the suit property came to his share in partition. For this purpose, he produced partition deed, which was neither stamped nor registered, therefore, could not be read in evidence. Defendant/Respondent no.3 Smt. Ratan Kanwar filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipurwati (Jhunjhunu) being Civil Suit No.7/2004 for perpetual injunction in which cause of action accrued to her on 18.01.2004, when original plaintiff/petitioner Hari Singh along -with 10 -15 other persons tried to forcibly dispossess her from the suit premises.
(3.) THE defendant/respondent filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC in the suit of the present plaintiff/petitioner inter alia on the premise that the proceedings in the present suit be deferred till earlier suit filed by defendant/respondent is not decided. Learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu, has, by impugned order, allowed the said application and stayed the proceedings of the suit filed in that court. Shri M.K. Jain, learned counsel for plaintiff/petitioner, argued that there was no justification for staying the proceedings of the suit in the present case because even as per the plea set up by defendant/respondent in the written statement, the valuation of the suit property was Rs.70,00,000/ - (Rupees seventy lacs) and the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipurwati, had no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. While the suit has been filed by the defendant/respondent before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) only for the purpose of perpetual injunction, the plaintiff/petitioner, in the suit filed by him, has prayed for a decree of eviction, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction and, therefore, the scope of the suit filed before the court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu, was much wider than the suit filed by the defendant/respondent.;