JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur in C.S. No.93 of 2013 involving an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure being moved by the plaintiffs as find place at Annexure-7 of the civil miscellaneous petition.

2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner as the plaintiff along with the other co-sharers filed title suit vide T.S. No.113 of 1997 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur for declaring the gift deeds as void since the defendant no.2 Sudhansu Mohan Das is not the adopted son of late Satyendra and further, the possession of the defendants 1 & 2 therein over the disputed property in favour of the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 & 2 from claiming any interest over the suit land. Plaintiff-petitioner has lost his attempt in the above suit vide R.F.A. No.8 of 2015, which is presently pending disposal. It is while the matter stood as above, the petitioner again filed C.S. No.93 of 2013 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur for permanently restraining the defendants from forcibly attempted to take possession of the disputed property. Taking into consideration the pendency of the R.F.A. No.8 of 2015, it appears, the result therein has a bearing on the result of the subsequent suit. The plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. which matter was rejected by the order of the trial court on 16.7.2014 on the premises that the present defendants are not the parties to the suit vide T.S. No.113 of 1997. After gap of two years, the petitioner-plaintiff filed another application under Section 10 of C.P.C. on the self same ground requesting therein for stay of further proceeding of the later suit till disposal of the R.F.A. No.8 of 2015. On the premises that the opposite parties-the present defendants for not being party to the title suit vide T.S. No.113 of 1997, the trial court held that the petition is not maintainable and consequently, rejected the same. Thus, the present civil miscellaneous petition.

3. Shri Sushanta Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the provisions contained in Section 10 of the C.P.C. and also to the dispute involved in both the suits contended that for the interest of justice and to avoid any inconsistent view in the later suit, the later suit should be stayed till final outcome in the R.F.A. No.8 of 2015. Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for interference of this Court in the impugned order, thereby setting aside the same and allowing the application under Section 10 of C.P.C.

4. Shri S.S. Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties-defendants on the other hand, taking this Court to the nature of the suits involved herein, particularly the disputes and the parties required to be considered involving both the suits and further for the rejection of the earlier application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner itself by the very same court contended that there is right decision by the trial court involving the issue and thus, there is no scope for this Court for interfering in such orders in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Shri Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties also taking this Court to the decisions of different Court particularly the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences versus C. Parameshwara, as reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 242, in the case of Y.B. Patil and others versus Y.L. Patil, as reported in AIR (1977) S.C. 392, in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra versus Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, as reported in AIR 1962 (S.C.) 527, in the case of Sudhansu Mishrani and others versus Subal Mishra, as reported in AIR 1984 (Orissa) 205, in the case of Sambhu Pras