Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The revision petition filed by the defendant Ajaib Singh challenges an order dismissing his application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking a stay of proceedings in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by Balbir Singh (!) (!) .

2. The First Suit was initiated by the respondent-plaintiff, Balbir Singh, for partition of land and a permanent injunction, filed on 22.04.2021, claiming a specific share in the property (!) .

3. The petitioner, Ajaib Singh, also filed a subsequent suit challenging mutation entries related to the same property and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent interference with his possession (!) .

4. The application under Section 10 was contested and ultimately dismissed by the trial court, which led to the present revision petition (!) .

5. The petitioner argued that since the mutation entries, which formed the basis of the First Suit, were under challenge in the Second Suit, the proceedings in the First Suit should be stayed to prevent unnecessary adjudication (!) .

6. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the suit for partition necessitates a determination of each party’s share, which cannot be finalized without adjudicating the rights of the parties in the First Suit (!) (!) .

7. The court viewed the Second Suit as a delaying tactic rather than a genuine challenge to the mutation entries, noting that the First Suit's purpose was to establish entitlement to a share in the property, which required ongoing proceedings (!) .

8. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order dismissing the stay application and dismissed the revision petition accordingly (!) (!) .

Would you like a detailed legal analysis or any specific assistance related to this case?

JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

The petitioner-defendant No. 1, by way of present revision petition, seeks setting aside of the order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar/Mohali (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial Court'), in Civil Suit No. 334 of 2021, titled 'Balbir Singh Versus Ajaib Singh & Ors. ' (hereinafter to be called as 'First Suit'), whereby an application under Section 10 of the Code Civil Procedure, filed at the instance of petitioner-defendant No.1, for seeking stay of the proceedings of First Suit for separate possession by way of partition, filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff, stands dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, respondent-plaintiff No. 1 first filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition, claiming 1/12th share in land comprised in Kh/Kh No. 342/331/364 bearing Khasra No. 250 (0-5), situated within the area of Village Mataur, H.No. 7, Tehsil & District SAS Nagar as per jamabandi for the year 2013-14, besides claiming a decree for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction or alienating the same in any manner. The aforesaid said / First Suit was filed on 22.04.2021, the petitioner (Ajaib Singh) been arrayed as defendant No. 1 therein. Later in 2022, the petitioner filed a subsequent suit bearing Civil Suit No. 66 of 2022, titled 'Ajaib Singh Versus Balbir Kaur and others' (hereinafter to be called as 'Second Suit') for challenging the mutation entries qua the suit property and also claimed decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants therein from interfering in his possession. Thereafter, an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the petitioner, seeking stay of proceedings in the First Suit filed at the instance of respondent No. 1-plaintiff (Balbir Singh).

3. The prayer made on behalf of petitioner-defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein and the trial Court vide its order dated 10.10.2023 (P-9) dismissed the same. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2023 (P-9) passed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once, the mutation entries on the basis of which the First Suit was filed for separate possession by way of partition filed at the instance of respondent No. 1-plaintiff, itself were under challenge in the Second Suit for declaration, no decree could be granted in favour of respondent No. 1- plaintiff in the First Suit and thus, there was no purpose of continuation of proceedings therein.

5. No other argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioner.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book, I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of petitioner.

7. The present revision petition is wholly misconceived. The First Suit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1-plaintiff being for separate possession on the basis of partition, would naturally entail an adjudication by the trial Court qua the share of respondent No. 1-plaintiff (Balbir Singh) in the suit land. Unless any such declaration was granted by way of preliminary decree, no final partition could be ordered by the Court. Thus, as a natural consequence, the trial Court was enjoined to adjudicate and declare the rights / entitlement / share of the parties in the First Suit and in such circumstances, Second Suit for declaration and permanent injunction, filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 (Ajaib Singh), at best, was merely a ploy to delay the proceedings in the First Suit for separate possession by way of partition filed at the instance of respondent No.1-plaintiff.

8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and in the given facts and circumstances, no illegality or perversity can be found with the reasoning recorded by the trial Court vide, while passing the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 (P