Jurisdiction of Civil Court to grant stay under inherent powers.

V. RAMASWAMI, J.:- The question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether a civil Court has jurisdiction under S.151 C.P.C., to stay a suit, or proceeding involving a decision as to whether a particular person is a cultivating tenant or not, pending before it, on the ground that the tenant had applied for registration of his tenancy under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, (Act 10 of 1969) even if it is satified that such stay of the proceedings may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the court. The civil revision petition came up for hearing before Sengottuvelan, J. who referred this matter for a consideration by the Division Bench in view of the importance of the matter and also on the ground that the decision of Sathiadev, J. in C.R.P. No.3084 of 1978, Thangavelu v. Kamalanathan, is in conflict with the decision of Suryamurthy, J. in Rayappan v. Patheeswaraswami Devasthanam, reported in (1978) 91 Mad LW 459.

2. The petitioners herein filed O.S. No.8 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties. They entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant in the suit and in part performance of that agreement of sale, they put the first defendant in possession of the properties. The first defendant is stated to be a teacher employed at Orathanad and the properties are situated in a different place and in the circumstances therefore, the further case of the plaintiffs was that the first defendant put his brother, the second defendant, in possession of the properties and the second defendant was in possession and management as such manager of the first defendant. On certain allegations which, it is not necessary to refer, the plaintiffs claimed that the first defendant is not entitled to get a sale deed in his favour and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the properties. The plaintiffs have added defendants 3 to 9, on the ground that they also claimed to be in possession under the second defendant.

3. After the summons in the suit were served on the defendants, defendants 2 to 9 filed I.A. No.442 of 1979, purporting to be under Ss.10 and 151, C.P.C., praying for a stay of the trial of the suit till the enquiry on their application filed before the Record Officer, Mayuram under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (Act 10 of 1969) is disposed of. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, they had stated that they are cultivating tenants in respect of the suit properties, that they have filed the application in form No.5 on the file of the Additional Tahsildar and Record Officer, Mayuram, to record their names as such cultivating tenants in respect of the suit properties, that almost the examination of the witnesses in favour of the petitioners and the respondents was over, that the Record Officer has jurisdiction to decide as to whether the petitioners before him were cultivating tenants or not and that, if during the pendency of the enquiry before the Record Officer the suit is taken up for trial their rights as tenants would be jeopardised and irreparable loss and hardship will be caused to them.

4. While not disputing that the defendants 2 to 9 have filed such an application before the Record Officer, Mayuram and the enquiry was in progress, the plaintiffs filed a counter to the application denying that the defendants-petitioners had any such right as cultivating tenants and stating that they are not tenants under the plaintiffs. They further contended that by reason of the parallel proceedings before the Record Officer, they can successfully nullify the proceedings in the civil court and that the ends of justice require that the civil proceeding should be proceeded with. It was further contended that S.10 of the Code is not applicable and there is no inherent jurisdiction vested in the co