The trial court has the jurisdiction to direct analogous hearing of both the suits instead of directing stay of the subsequent suit when the main questions raised in both the suits are similar, the contesting parties are same in both the suits, and one of the main issues in both the suits would be relating to validity of the sale deed allegedly executed in favour of the present opposite party by Bijayalaxmi Das, who is also a party in the other suit.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Misra, J. - In Civil Revision No. 195/99, the plaintiff has come up in revision under the following circumstances : She had filed Title Suit No. 398/96 for declaration of right, title and interest over the disputed property and for further declaration that the registered sale deed No. 4181 dated 27.12.1995 is null and void and for permanent injunction against the present opposite party and Bijayalaxmi Das as defendants. During the pendency of the said suit, he filed an application numbered as Misc. Case No. 379/96 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC against the present opposite party for interim injunction. The trial Court by its order dated 28.9.1996 directed both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the "C" schedule property which order was being continued from time to time. Subsequently, the suit including the application for injunction was transferred to the Court of the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack, for disposal. The trial Court had directed that the matter shall be placed on 19.3.1999, but on the basis of wrong impression, the Clerk-in-charge of the case of the petitioner thought that the case had been posted to 22.3.1999. Accordingly, the Misc. Case No. 379/96 was dismissed for default on 19.3.1999 due to non-taking of steps. The petitioner learnt about such dismissal on 22.3.1999 and thereafter filed an application under Order 9, Rule 4, read with Section 151, CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 19.3.1999. The said application numbered as Misc. Case No. 60/99 having been rejected by the trial Court, the present Civil Revision has been filed.

2. At the time of entertaining the revision, an interim order was passed on 26.6.1999 directing status quo to be maintained and the said order has been subsequently continued from time to time.

3. During the pendency of the present revision, it transpired that in another pending suit, i.e. Title Suit No. 536/96 between the parties, Civil Revision No. 147/98 has been filed by the present petitioner and another before the District Judge, Cuttack. On the request of the counsel for the present opposite party (who is the plaintiff in the other suit and opp. party No. 1 in the revision before the District Judge), the records of the said Civil Revision No. 147/98 in the file of the District Judge, Cuttack, had been called for. Both the revisions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The dispute in Civil Revision No. 195/99 relates to the question as to whether Misc. Case No. 379/96 (which has been subsequently renumbered as Misc. Case No. 35/99) should be restored to file for consideration. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has stated that the opposite party in his objection has clearly indicated that he does not want to forcibly evict the present petitioner from the disputed land and as a matter of fact, he has filed the connected suit, Title Suit No..536/ 96, for declaration of title and possession of the very same property and, as already indicated, the records in Civil Revision No. 147/98 arising out of the said suit have been called for.

5. In the aforesaid back-ground and considering the fact that order of status quo is continuing for almost about three years, instead of formally restoring Misc. Case No. 379/96 (corresponding to Misc. Case No. 35/ 99) for consideration by the trial Court on merit, I direct that the order of status quo, as already passed, shall continue till disposal of Title Suit No. 398/96. In such view of the matter, it would not be necessary for the trial Court to consider further the question of injunction.

6. Now coming to Civil Revision No. 147/98 in the file of the District Judge, Cuttack, records of which have been called for, the counsels appearing for the parties therein being the very same counsels appearing in Civil Revision No. 195/99 filed in this Court have been heard. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Ci