Civil Court has sufficient jurisdiction to pass order of stay.

1. The above revision is directed against the order dated 3.12.1997 in I.A.No.527 of 1998 in O.S.No.96 of 1997, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nannilam, refusing to stay the proceedings of the said suit, pending disposal of an appeal in N.T.R. Appeal No.1 of 1997 before the learned Appellate Authority Revenue Records, Mayiladuthurai, preferred by the revision petitioner/plaintiff to the suit.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the revision petitioner who has filed the above suit in O.S.No.96 of 1997 before the learned District Munsif, Nannilam seeking a bare injunction against the respondent defendant forbearing the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The above suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant stating that he is a cultivating tenant as per the records maintained by the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Act, and in support of the said contention he has also filed an extract of the certificate issued by the Record Officer to prove that the respondent/defendant is in possession of the suit property, which necessitated the revision petitioner/plaintiff to file the appeal namely, R.T.R. Appeal No.1 of 1997 before the learned Appellate Authority. (Records of Tenancy Rights) Mayiladuthurai, challenging the entry that the respondent/defendant is a cultivating tenant under the Record of Tenancy Rights Act on the ground that the said entries are made without hearing the revision petitioner/plaintiff and therefore, the same is not maintainable.

4. Simultaneously, the revision petitioner/plaintiff also filed an application in I.A.No.527 of 1997 in O.S.No.96 of 1997 under Sec.10 read with Sec.151, C.P.C. seeking a stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.96 of 1997 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nannilam, pending disposal of the above R.T.R. Appeal No.1 of 1997.

5. However, the learned District Munsif, Nannilam, dismissed the above application by this order dated 3.12.1997 on the ground that Sec.10, C.P.C. is not applicable to stay the proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.96 of 1997 as the proceedings are pending before the learned Appellate Authority, Revenue Records, Mayiladuthurai. Hence, the above revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the decision in

(i) Rayappan v. Sri Patteswaraswami Devasthanam, by its E.O., 1977 T.L.N.J. 87, and (ii). Krishnan v. Krishnamurthy , and (ii). Krishnan v. Krishnamurthy , and (ii). Krishnan v. Krishnamurthy , (1982)1 MLJ. 4.

contends that the court below erred in refusing to stay the proceeding of the suit during the pendency of the appeal in R.T.R. Appeal No.1 of 1997 before the learned Appellate Authority (Revenue Records), Mayiladuthurai.

7. Mr.R.P.Kabilan, learned counsel for the respondent, reiterated the reasons and findings of the court below and contends that the court below has rightly rejected the application to stay the proceedings.

8. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

9. In Rayappan v. Sri Patteswaraswami Devasthanam its E.O., 1977 T.L.N.J. 87 this Court, interpreting the powers of the Civil Court under Secs.10 and 151, C.P.C. has held that the civil court has got ample jurisdiction to exercise its discretion for granting stay to meet the ends of justice. In the said decision, it is held as follows:

“Until that application is finally disposed of it is not in the interests of justice that the suit should be tried and disposed of. In fact without a finding as to whether the plaintiff has any legal right to continue in possession. An injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff. Even if he proves that he is in possession. Apart from the provisions of Sec.10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Civil court has ample jurisdiction under Sec.151 of the Civil Procedure Code to exercise its discretion and grant a stay in order to meet the ends of justice. The comity of courts will have to