Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) These revision petitions are directed against orders dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sr. Civil Judge No.4, Bikaner ('the trial court'), whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC in two suits have been rejected. The respondents filed suits for possession after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the Act').
(2.) Whereafter, the petitioner filed applications under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, contending that the suit was barred by law, inasmuch as, in a previous suit filed by the plaintiff/ predecessor in interest already a decree had been passed by the trial court for eviction on 12.01.2006 and an appeal against the same was pending before the Court of District Judge, Bikaner ('the first appellate court'), wherein stay of the decree has been granted by the first appellate court.
(3.) It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that already proceedings for eviction qua the suits' property was pending against the petitioner before the competent court, the present proceedings on allegedly a fresh cause of action again for the same purpose for seeking possession of the premises could not be maintained by the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaints were liable to be rejected.;