Point of Law: Civil Suit - Title of revision petition - Power of superintendence cannot be exercised merely to correct errors of law or fact or just because another view, other than taken by subordinate court is also a possible view.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Second Division Pattan) (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which the application filed by the petitioner for staying the proceedings of the suit filed by the respondent No. 1, has been dismissed.

2. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia on the following grounds:

(a) that the learned trial court has wrongly dismissed the application filed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) as the matter in issue in the subsequent suit is similar to that in the suit previously instituted by the petitioner as the subject matter of both the suits pertains to the shop and the decision in the suit filed by the petitioner would operate res-judicata in the subsequent suit.

(b) that the learned trial court has wrongly dismissed the application in a mechanical manner as the relief claimed by the respondent No. 1 though pertaining to the same shop, was not capable being granted as she had claimed the relief of declaration without there being any documentary evidence in support thereof.

3. Before this Court adverts to the facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition, it is necessary to observe that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned the title of the revision petition as in a suit filed by the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 has never been a party but the sons of the petitioner are the parties in the said suit, however, the said defect in title may not have material fact upon the determination of the present controversy as the dispute is primarily between the petitioner and respondent No. 1.

4. Briefly stated, the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents whereby he had sought a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from causing any sort of interference with the peaceful possession and ownership of the petitioner over the suit property and also from trying to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property. Simultaneously, during the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 also filed a suit against the petitioner and his sons whereby she prayed for issuance of a decree of declaration in her favour as the owner of the suit property against the defendants therein including the petitioner and further decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought for restraining the defendants therein from causing any interference with the peaceful possession of respondent No. 1 over the suit property. Needless to say in both the suits, the subject matter of the dispute is the shop.

5. The suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the petitioner on the ground that there were two agreements between the parties by virtue of which the respondent No. 1 would purchase one shop of the complex and vis-a-vis land and respondent No. 2 shall sell some land to the plaintiff/petitioner. The said agreement was not adhered to by the defendants and subsequently, some settlement was arrived at between the parties. The petitioner apprehending interference at the hands of respondents with his possession qua the suit shop, filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. After the filing of the said suit, it is claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed from the suit shop and, as such, he not only filed an application for maintenance of status quo ante but also lodged an FIR against the respondents. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction with regard to the same shop on the basis of agreement to sell. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed an application under section 10 of the Code for staying the proceedings of the subsequent suit filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner on the ground that the subject matter of the parties in the suit are the same and th