The court can grant a stay of proceedings under Section 151 of the CPC in an appropriate situation, even if the ingredients of Section 10 of the CPC relating to grant of stay of the suit filed by the plaintiff are not available.

1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows :-

This application is at the instance of the substituted plaintiff and is directed against the order dated August 9, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore in T.S. No. 41 of 1994 thereby rejecting the application for stay of all further proceedings of the said suit and the suit being E.O.S. No. 48 of 1999 for declaration pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta till the disposal of the two probate cases.

2. THE predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff instituted a suit being T.S. 41 of 1994 for declaration and perpetual injunction. In that suit, the defendant No. 3 / opposite party herein entered an appearance and he filed a written statement raising also a counterclaim for a decree for specific performance of contract and such a counterclaim has been converted into the Title Suit being Title Suit No. 88 of 1996. THE plaintiff of the Title Suit No. 41 of 1994 was required to file a written statement against the counterclaim. THE original plaintiff (since deceased) executed a registered will dated November 23, 1992 in respect of all his properties including the premises No. 27A and 27B, Syed Amir All Avenue, Kolkata-700 017 in favour of the plaintiff. He was also alleged to have executed another will in respect of the selfsame properties on March 20,1995. Two probate proceedings are pending. He was als6 alleged to have executed a deed of trust on March 20,1995. THE executors of the will dated November 20,1992 instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 15 of 1996 and that suit is now pending before this Hon'ble Court, Calcutta being E.O.S. No.48 of 1999. At that juncture, the plaintiff filed an application for stay of the two suits and an another suit being E.O.S. No.48 of 1999 pending before the Hon'ble High Court till the disposal of the two probate proceedings. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

3. UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that one Edwin Bason alias Edmond Bason (original plaintiff now deceased) was the absolute owner of the premises Nos. 27A and 27B, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta - 700 017 (premises in suit). The plaintiff contended that Edwin Bason executed a registered will dated November 23, 1992 bequeathing of all his movable and immovable properties including the premises in suit in favor of the plaintiff and the executors of the will dated November 23,1992 filed a probate case after the death of the testator on July 6, 1995. That probate case is being numbered as Act 39 Case No. 111 of 1996 now pending before the Hon'ble Court, Calcutta being E.O.P.L.A. No. 1 of 2007.

4. ONE Mr. Umashankar Sadhu claimed that Edwin Bason executed another will dated March 20 of 1995 and the same was registered on Commission and it was the last will of Edwin and the executors of the will dated March 20, 1995 filed another probate case which is now pending before this Hon'ble Court, Calcutta being renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 2006. The executors of the second will have contended that Edwin Bason executed a deed of trust on the date of execution of the will dated March 20,1995. A suit being T.S. No. 15 of 1996 has been filed by the executors of the will dated November 23, 1992 in the Alipore Court for declaration that the said deed of trust is void and the said suit is now pending before this Hon'ble Court being renumbered as E.O.S. No. 48 of 1999. Since the two probate proceedings are pending, the plaintiff has filed an application for stay of the two suits referred to above till the disposal of the two probate proceedings.

5. THE plaintiff/petitioner herein is required to file a written statement in the counter-claim and she filed the proceeding for probate, as indicated above. Therefore, the result of the probate