( 1 ) IN all these petitions the question crops up once again whether the proceedings in a suit should be stayed under Sec. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (`the Act' for short) when a plea is taken by a party litigant that he is a tenant of the land in question even though the court in the said suit is not called upon to decide any of the issues that are barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Sec. 133.

( 2 ) IN C. R. P. 2950/00, C. R. P. 2533/02 and C. R. P. 1248/03 the defendants have challenged the impugned orders of the court-below refusing to stay the proceedings in suits filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction.

( 3 ) IN C. R. P. 1779/03 and C. R. P. 4809/01 the challenge is to the order of the court-below refusing to stay the proceedings in suits filed by plaintiffs for possession of the suit property.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides in all these petitions.

( 5 ) SOME of the counsel appearing for the parties drew attention to the fact that similar matter in C. R. P. 3852/2000 and C. R. P. 3877/2000 have been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this court and these matters

Click Here to Read the rest of this document