SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the order of the High Court dated 26-12-1996, whereby the declaratory suit filed by Mir Muhammad, respondent, was stayed under section 10, C.P.C.
2. In view of the controversy involved in the present appeal it is not necessary to narrate the detailed facts of the two suits which have culminated in the order under appeal. However, it may briefly be stated here that a suit entitled ' Wali Muhammad v. Khan Gul and others' (File No.274 instituted on 22-7-199.0) was sub judice in the Court of Sub-Judge, Rawalakot, when another declaratory suit entitled 'Mir Muhammad v. Wali Muhammad and others' (File No.141 instituted on 29-7-1995),was instituted in the Court of Additional Sub--Judge, Rawalakot. In view of the averments made in the plaints and respective contentions of the parties in two suits, there is controversy as to whether the property, which is subject-matter of two suits is partly or wholly identical or is altogether different one. The subsequent suit filed by Mir Muhammad was instituted for a declaration that exchange deed dated 19-3-1995, executed by Wali Muhammad in favour of Muhammad Afgar and others, was null and void against his interests; in alternative, he claimed that it was tantamount to a sale and as such prayed for decree for possession in exercise of right of prior purchase in his .Favour, Mir Muhammad, plaintiff, submitted an application before the Additional Sub-Judge praying that as in the suit filed by Wali Muhammad against Khan Gul and others, a revision petition is pending in the High Court, the proceedings in his suit may be stayed till the decision of the revision' petition; he further prayed that after the disposal of the revision petition by the High Court, both the. Suits, i.e., one filed by him and other filed by Wali Muhammad may be consolidated and tried together. The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the application of Mir Muhammad on the ground that the other suit was not pending before him but was sub judice in the Court of Sub-Judge and, thus, there was no question of consolidation of the suits.
Consequently, Mir Muhammad filed a revision petition, wherein he prayed that it was appropriate that both the suits are consolidated and tried together. The revision petition was disposed of by the High Court in terms that the suit filed by Mir Muhammad in the Court of Additional Sub-Judge was also transferred to the Court of Sub-Judge, Rawalakot; however instead of accepting the prayer of Mir Muhammad that both the suits may be consolidated and tried together, the learned Single Judge in the High Court ordered that the suit filed by Mir Muhammad would remain stayed under section 10, C.P.C., and other suit filed by Wali Muhammad shall be proceeded under law.
3. We have heard the arguments and gone through the file. It may be stated at the very outset that according to the appellant, the order of the High Court, whereby the proceedings in the suit filed by Mir Muhammad were stayed is violative of law because neither Mir Muhammad, plaintiff, nor Wali Muhammad or Muhammad Afsar and others sought that the suit filed by Mir Muhammad should be stayed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the perusal of the application - moved by Mir Muhammad, appellant, in the Court of Additional Sub-Judge and order of the Additional sub-Judge dated 13-10-1996 clearly bear the testimony to the fact that it was not the case of Mir Muhammad that his suit should be stayed; the learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the parties in both the suits are different and so are the causes of action and, thus, the subsequent suit cannot be stayed under the provisions of section 10 of C.P.C. Which envisage that for an order under section 10, not only the parties in both the suits must be same but the questions involved in both the suits should be identical. But none of the conditions laid down in section 10 of C.P.C. Are satisfied in the instant case.
4. Sardar Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for Mir Muhammad and others, does not controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point that it was not the case of Mir Muhammad before the Additional Sub-Judge or the High Court that the suit filed by him should be stayed. However, he has argued that if one of the suits is disposed of earlier than the other, that may give rise to complications and result in multiplicity of the proceedings. Thus, he stressed that it is expedient that both the suits are tried side by side and disposed of simultaneously.
5.We have given our due consideration to the matter. The bare reading of section 10 of,C.P.C. Would reveal that the conditions necessary for staying the subsequent suit are not satisfied in the instant case; because the parties are not A identical and the causes of action are different in both the suits. Hence we are of the view that the order passed by the High Court so far as it pertains to staying the proceedings in the suit filed by Mir Muhammad is concerned, is not sustainable.
However, in view of the stand taken by the parties in both the cases it is in the fitness of things if the trial in both the suits is carried out side by side as far as possible and both the suits are disposed of simultaneously. Thus, it is ordered that the Sub-Judge shall proceed with both the suits separately and if the proceedings in any one of them come to an end earlier, the judgment in that suit shall not be announced, until and unless the proceedings in the other suit are completed. After completing the trial in both the suits, the arguments would be heard and suits shall be disposed of simultaneously so as to avoid any inconvenience to the parties. The order of the High Court stands amended in terms indicated above.
The result is that the appeal is partly accepted with no order as to the costs, revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.