( 1. ) PETITION has been preferred against the order dated 30-11-2006 (Annexure P-1) rejecting thereby an application dated 11-12-2003 submitted under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2. ) SHORT facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 7-4-1978 from one Sohanlal pujari for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-, Manager Court of Wards (Tehsildar) Ratlam, on an application submitted before him by Sanatan Dharm Sabha, ratlam, declared it as a Government property. Petitioner challenged it by instituting Civil Suit No. 143-A/98. He prayed for declaration of title in his favour. Permanent injunction was also sought against the State of Madhya pradesh as well as Manager Court of Wards to the effect that the mutation in favour of State of Madhya Pradesh in the record of Municipal Corporation, ratlam may beleted. Copy of the plaint is on record as Annexure P-6. The suit was contested by the then defendants by submitting a written statement and issues were raised" therein by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of First civil Judge Class- I, Ratlam, Issue No. 1 (A) pertained to the title and possession of the plaintiff whereas, issue No. 1 (B) pertained to the ownership of the State government over the suit property. The suit was decreed on 12-9-2003 in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment and decree contained in Annexure P-9 and the title of the plaintiff/petitioner with respect to the suit property was declared. Simultaneously, the order of the Collector Ratlam dated 14-1-1997 was declared void and ineffective. A decree for permanent injunction was also granted restraining the defendants therein from causing interference into the plaintiff rights and possession over the suit property. Judgment and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court vide Annexure p-10. Second Appeal No. 1420/05 against the aforesaid has been admitted by this Court and the same is pending for adjudication as revealed in Annexure P-11.

( 3. ) ANOTHER Civil Suit bearing CS. No. 8-A/2003 has been instituted by

(i) Murti Madanmohan Ji (Shri Krishna Bhagwan) through Collector, Ratlam,

(ii) State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Ratlam, and (iii) Tehsildar and manager Court of Wards, Ratlam, against the defendant/petitioner and certain other persons occupying the suit property as tenants, with a prayer that it be declared that the suit property is under the management of the plaintiffs and is a public property and the petitioner herein may be restrained from instituting suits for eviction against the tenants of the temple and from evicting them. Copy of the subsequent plaint is on record as Annexure P- l 2. Petitioner submitted his written statement vide Annexure P-13 refuting the allegations contained in the plaint. Court of Second Additional District Judge, Ratlam, who is trying the subsequent suit, raised various issues including issue that whether the suit property is Government property.

( 4. ) THE defendant/petitioner on 11-12-2006 submitted an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure that proceedings in the subsequent suit (i. e. , CS. No. 8- A/2003) pending in the Court of Second additional District Judge, Ratlam, may be stayed until decision of Second appeal No. 1420/2005. The application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dismissed the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit was rendered by the Court of Civil judge, whereas, the present suit is pending in the Court of Additional District judge. Thus, the jurisdiction of both the Courts is not common. Learned Trial judge has further observed that Murti Madanmohan Ji (i. e. , impleaded in the current suit) is an independent juristic person therefore, parties to both the suits are not common.

( 5. ) SHRI Pavecha, learned