- (1.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order dated 21/1/2006 (Annexure-6) and in rejecting the prayer for stay of the suit proceedings under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC'); and this writ petition being totally devoid of substance deserves to be rejected.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioners are defendants in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent No. 2. A comprehension of the plaint averments (Annex. 1) makes it evident that the dispute relates to a piece of land situated at 7 E Chhoti, Tehsil Sriganganagar in Murraba No. 14, Khatedar of the said land, Rawata Ram son of Mana Ram, sold 2 bighas of land through his power of attorney Rahul Chhabra on 17/11/1998 -to Mahendra Singh and Hansraj; and in such sale, the land in dispute comprised in Kila No. 23/2 admeasuring 5 biswas and 20 biswansi was included; mutation was effected in the name of the purchasers and thereafter the said purchasers, Mahendra Singh and Hansraj, sold the land to the plaintiff (respondent No. 2) on 10-8-1999 and it was duly mutated in her name too. It appears that the same power of attorney of Rawata Ram executed another sale deed on 15-10-1998 for a land in the same Murraba No. 14 admeasuring 2 bighas 19 biswas 20 biswansi to the defendant No. 1 Ramesh Miglani (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives, petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/5). The point of dispute has arisen on the said power of attorney executing deed of rectification on 1-5-1999 in relation to the land sold to the defendant No. 1 and in the said deed, the disputed land of Kila No. 23/2 admeasuring 5 biswas 20 biswansi was also got included apart from other parcels of land in Murraba No. 14. The plaintiff, respondent No. 2 Smt. Shashi Goyal appears to have filed a revenue suit for perpetual injunction before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Sriganganagar on 3- 12-2002 against the same defendant, Ramesh Miglani; and it further appears that the said defendant has also filed a suit in the same revenue Court for declaration of his khatedari rights under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and for cancellation of the mutation made in favour of the present respondent No. 2 in which it has, inter alia, been alleged that he had entered into an agreement for purchase of the land in question as back as on 29/11/1989.
(3.) Therefore, the status of pending litigation before the revenue Court is that there is a suit prosecuted by the present petitioners for declaration of khatedari rights in relation to the said land of Kila No. 23/2; another is the suit filed by the present respondent No. 2 for perpetual injunction against the present petitioners in relation to the same disputed land.;