Stay of Suit--Cases are not revived immediately when the proceedings on account of which the case was adjourned sine die, are over--District & Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh asked to furnish list of all the cases in the district which have been adjourned sine die and the reason therefore.
Stay of Suit--Once the parties were represented and the proceedings in the suit had been adjourned sine die due to pendency of another litigation with identical issue, the parties were not required to be summoned again as the notice could have been issued only to the counsel for the parties.

Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - Defendant No. 1 has filed the present petition in this court challenging the order dated 25.1.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby she was restrained from cross-examining the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and other witnesses on the question of legality and validity of the agreement to sell, as the issue had already been decided in earlier litigation between the parties.

2. The case in hand has a checkered history. The present proceedings arise out of a civil suit filed by respondent No. 1- plaintiff on 17.10.1995 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9.12.1992. After notice, the parties had put in appearance. The issues were framed on 6.11.1996. When the case was at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, application was filed by the petitioner on 16.11.1999 under Section 10 CPC for stay of the suit. The same was decided by the learned court below on 23.9.2000, whereby the suit was adjourned sine die and ordered to be consigned to record room and to be re-called as and when ordered by the court. The application was filed by the petitioner with the plea that she had filed a suit earlier on 6.3.1993 for declaration to the effect that she is the owner in possession of the property in dispute and further permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendants therein from effecting transfer in any manner or alienation of the property to any one and further for mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 3 therein (respondent No. 1 herein) for handing over possession of the suit property to the petitioner. The learned court below having found that issues in both the suits were substantially similar, the proceedings were adjourned sine die.

3. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court on 16.10.2003. First appeal was dismissed by the learned lower appellate court on 11.9.2004 and subsequent thereto, even Regular Second Appeal No. 600 of 2005 filed by the petitioner before this court was also dismissed on 20.1.2006.

4. On 28.10.2003, respondent No. 1- plaintiff filed application for revival of the proceedings in the suit, which was adjourned sine die on 23.9.2000, in which though the petitioner, who was defendant No. 1 was represented after service, whereas defendant No. 2- Improvement Trust, Ludhiana was proceeded against ex-parte. To the application, reply was filed by the petitioner on 11.5.2005 stating that the application is not maintainable as the appeal filed by the petitioner was still pending before this court for 23.9.2005. After no objection was given by learned counsel for the petitioner on 12.8.2009, the proceedings in the suit were directed to be revived and the case was fixed for evidence of respondent No. 1- plaintiff. Only one PW was examined. When he was sought to be cross-examined on the issue regarding validity of the agreement to sell, counsel for respondent No. 1 raised an objection claiming that the issue regarding validity of the agreement to sell had already been gone into in other litigation between the parties, hence, the same cannot be raised again. By the impugned order, the learned court below sustained the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff and permitted the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff and other witnesses to be produced by her only to the extent of readiness and willingness for performance of her part of the agreement as the legality and validity of the agreement to sell had already been gone into between the parties in the earlier litigation. It is against this order that the petitioner is before this court.

5. A subsequent fact, as is evident from the file of the court below, is that thereafter the case was pending for recording evidence of the plaintiff when an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 15.3.2012 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is defective being without any cause of action. The application