JUDGMENT PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. 1. CHALLENGE is to the order no.53 dated July 6, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.222 of 1997 thereby allowing an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. THE plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit being Title Suit No.222 of 1997 praying for declaration that the deeds of gift executed by Promila Sundari Mazumdar in favour of the opposite party are void, fraudulent, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff and for further declarations. THE opposite party is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of the suit till disposal of a title appeal being T. A. No.162 of 1994 and a second appeal being S.A. No.540 of 1991. That application for stay was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revisional application. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on going through the materials on record and also the written arguments filed by the parties, I find that several factors are involved in the matter. The short history of such facts is necessary for proper appreciation of the matter. 3. ONE Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar and his wife, Promila Sundari Mazumdar purchased lands to the extent of 8 decimals and 3 decimals respectively by separate registered deeds dated January 11, 1960. Thereafter Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar and Promila Sundari Mazumdar dedicated the said properties in favour of Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jew Thakur and Kuladevi Iswar Manasamata Thakurani by a deed of Arpannama dated May 15, 1973 for holding daily sebapuja for Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jew Thakur and annual festival for Kuladevi Iswar Manasamata Thakurani. Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar became the first sebait and after his death, his wife Promila Sundari Mazumdar became the next sebait. 4. AJIT Bandhu Mazumdar died in July 1982. Thereafter, On April 6, 1983, Promila Sundari Mazumdar executed a deed declaring that the properties of the deities as secular properties. Promila Sundari Mazumdar was not satisfied with such steps and she filed a suit being Title Suit No.223 of 1983 before the First Munsif, Howrah impleading the deities represented by Promila Sundari Mazumdar as defendant. Thereafter, On April 6, 1983, Promila Sundari Mazumdar executed a deed declaring that the properties of the deities as secular properties. Promila Sundari Mazumdar was not satisfied with such steps and she filed a suit being Title Suit No.223 of 1983 before the First Munsif, Howrah impleading the deities represented by Promila Sundari Mazumdar as defendant. It may be noted herein that surprisingly Promila Sundari Mazumdar brought the suit against the deities represented by her also, that is, nobody had any chance of knowing what was going on. In this way, Promila Sundari Mazumdar got an ex parte decree of the said suit on November 30, 1983 to the effect that she was the owner of the properties in suit.When such matter came to light, Gopal Bandhu Mazumdar, the youngest brother of Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar, instituted a suit being Title Suit No.23 of 1984 against Promila Sundari Mazumdar praying that the ex parte decree obtained in Title Suit No.223 of 1983 and the deed of declaration executed by Promila Sundari Mazumdar are void, ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiff. On the prayer of the plaintiff, an order of status quo was passed in the said suit. 5. IN 1984, Promila Sundari Mazumdar instituted another suit being Title Suit No.73 of 1984 against Madhabilata, widow of Nisith Bandhu, brother of Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar, for eviction claiming herself as owner of the suit properties. Promila Sundari Mazumdar executed two deeds of gift in favour of the defendant on July 9, 1985 and September 29, 1986. 6. Ultimately, the Title Suit No.73 of 1984 was dismissed. Promila Sundari Mazumdar preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.142 of 1988 and that appeal was also dismissed on November 30, 1988. Thereafter, Promila Sundari Mazumdar preferred a second appeal before the Honble Court being S. A. No.540 of 1991 in 1989. The title suit filed by Gopal Bandhu Mazumdar being numbered as 23 of 1984 was decreed and Promila Sundari Mazumdar filed an appeal being Title Appeal No.162 of 1994 and that appeal is still pending. 7. PROMILA Sundari Mazumdar died on February 26, 1996. The opposite party no.1 prayed for substitution under Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and her application to that effect was allowed on July 26, 1996. Against such orders, an appeal being F.M.A. No.1373 of 2000 is pending before the Honble Court. 8. 7. PROMILA Sundari Mazumdar died on February 26, 1996. The opposite party no.1 prayed for substitution under Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and her application to that effect was allowed on July 26, 1996. Against such orders, an appeal being F.M.A. No.1373 of 2000 is pending before the Honble Court. 8. Thereafter, on July 8, 1997, the petitioner herein instituted the title suit being Title Suit No.222 of 1997 against Smt. Rita Manna and her husband, Partha Manna before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah praying for declaration that the deeds of gift dated July 9, 1985 and September 29, 1986 are fraudulent, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. In that suit, the petitioner prayed for temporary injunction as well as ad interim injunction and also for appointment of a receiver with respect to the properties of the petitioner. The application for temporary injunction was disposed of by the learned Trial Judge directing the parties to maintain status quo and the application for appointment of receiver was disposed of directing the opposite party to maintain accounts by herself and to place the same before the Court at six months interval. It was also directed that any amount deposited should abide by the result of the suit. The petitioner preferred appeals being F.M.A. No.124 of 2001 and F.M.A. No.125 of 2001 and those two appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court directing the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the said suit peremptorily by six months from the date of communication of this order to him and that the learned Trial Judge should not grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties while disposing of the suit. 9. THE above facts are not in dispute. For convenience, if I place the reliefs sought for in the three suits, it will be convenient for proper appreciation. Accordingly, the reliefs sought for in the three suits are placed one after another. In Title Suit No.23 of 1984 That the ex parte decree in Title Suit No.223 of 1983 and the deed of declaration dated April 6, 1983 are void, ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiff. In Title Suit No.73 of 1984 Claiming as the owner of the suit properties. In Title Suit No.23 of 1984 That the ex parte decree in Title Suit No.223 of 1983 and the deed of declaration dated April 6, 1983 are void, ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiff. In Title Suit No.73 of 1984 Claiming as the owner of the suit properties. In Title Suit No.222 of 1997 a. Leave be granted to the said Biswanath Mazumdar to proceed with the present suit representing the deities as next friend. b. Declaration that the Deeds of Gift dated 9.7.1985 and 29.9.1986 are fraudulent, void, inoperative and vitiated by under influence, fraud and misrepresentation and not binding upon the debottar estate as per Arpannama dated 15.5.1973 and further declaration that the properties described in Schedule below at all material point of time were/are the debottar properties and Promila Sundari Mazumdar had no personal right therein and pursuant to the said documents the defendant no.1 has not acquired any right and interest in respect of the properties hereunder written. c. For declaration that Promila Sundari Mazumdar had no personal/secular right in respect of the properties described in Schedule below and the purported deed executed by her could not confer any right upon defendant no.1 and she did not acquire any right nor she has any right over the properties described in the Schedule below by virtue of the purposed impugned two deeds of gift dated 9.7.1985 and 29.9.1986 fully described in the Schedule below, d. For further declaration that the two registered Deeds of Gift dated 9.7.1985 and 29.9.1986 fully described in the Schedule-B below executed by Promila Sundari Mazumdar in favour of the defendant no.1 are void documents and not binding upon the deities and/or next friend / shebait of the deities and to cancel and/or set aside the same. e. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents from interfering with the management of the deities properties fully described in the Schedule A below and/or from committing any act affecting the said debottar estate in any manner including the misappropriation of income of debottar estate. f. Receiver, g. Temporary injunction in terms of prayer ( ) h. Damages, i. Leave under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. j. Cost of suit, k. Any other relief/reliefs to which the plaintiff is found entitled both in law and in equity. 10. f. Receiver, g. Temporary injunction in terms of prayer ( ) h. Damages, i. Leave under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. j. Cost of suit, k. Any other relief/reliefs to which the plaintiff is found entitled both in law and in equity. 10. IN the above facts and circumstances, the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of all further proceedings of the Title Suit No.222 of 1997 till disposal of the Title Appeal No.162 of 1994 pending before the District Court, and the second appeal being S.A. No.540 of 1991 pending before the Honble Court had been filed by the opposite party no.1 and that application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. Thus, on comparison of the reliefs of the said three suits, it appears that the matter in issue of the three suits cannot be described as same and one. It may be kept in mind herein that as stated above an order of status quo was granted in the Title Suit No.23 of 1984 and while the said order was in force Promila Sundari Mazumdar executed the two deeds of gift and a deed of declaration as stated earlier. So when the execution of any deed with respect of the suit properties is done, such execution of the deeds remains, as if, non-est. I have considered the decision of AIR 1994 SC 1837 in support of my observation. This decision clearly lays down that when status quo was passed in respect of the properties, creation of sub-lease in such properties is illegal. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the defendant/opposite party no.1 cannot acquire title to the suit properties by way of such deeds of gift and declaration. She has been substituted in an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and it creates doubt whether she is entitled to be substituted under such circumstances. These are the matters to be decided finally at the time of disposal of the instant suit. Moreover, from the above facts, it is also evident that Promila Sundari Mazumdar got three decimals of land only by a deed dated January 11, 1960. The arpannama was executed on May 15, 1973 jointly by Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar and Promila Sundari Mazumdar dedicating the properties obtained by them in 1960. Moreover, from the above facts, it is also evident that Promila Sundari Mazumdar got three decimals of land only by a deed dated January 11, 1960. The arpannama was executed on May 15, 1973 jointly by Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar and Promila Sundari Mazumdar dedicating the properties obtained by them in 1960. Therefore, so far as the land of Promila Sundari Mazumdar is concerned, dispute may be raised and triable issues may be framed in the suit. But, so far as the properties of Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar is concerned, with regard to the arpannama, prima facie, such properties of Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar was transferred in favour of the petitioner and during his (husbands) lifetime, after execution of the deed of arpannama, she did not take any step for cancellation, etc. of that arpannama. So, there is every doubt whether the Promila Sundari Mazumdar has any right of transfer with regard to such properties left by Ajit Bandhu Mazumdar. Such questions are to be decided in the instant suit and it was not decided in the earlier suits. Therefore, the triable issues likely to be framed in the instant suit appear to be different from the ones decided in the earlier two suits. The ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No.223 of 1983 has been declared void ab initio in the Title Suit No.23 of 1984. So, it is difficult to hold that the triable issues of Title Suit No.222 of 1997 are the same as of Title Appeal No.162 of 1994 arising out of Title Suit No.23 of 1984 and of the second appeal being S.A. No.540 of 1991 arising out of the Title Suit No.73 of 1984. Moreover, the second appeal is dealt with the question of substantial law only. Therefore, I hold that the issues of the 3 suits are not the same. 11. MR. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, has referred to the decision of (2003) 2 WBLR 614(SC) and submits that a revisional application can be entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if the following conditions are satisfied:- 1. The error is manifest and apparent on the fact of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and 2. A grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. The error is manifest and apparent on the fact of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and 2. A grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Thus, he submits that in the instant case in order to avoid conflicting decisions, the learned Trial Judge has rightly allowed the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. 12. MR. Mukherjee has next referred to the decision reported in AIR 2005 Cal 11 and he has submitted that the time frame given by the High Court for disposal of the matter is only a pious desire exercised by it and rejection of application on the ground that the High Court has granted a time frame for disposal of the matter is not proper. Mr. Mukherjee has also referred to the decision reported in (2002) 1 CLT 430 (HC) and thus, he submits that a subsequent suit has to be stayed pending appeal against the order refusing to set aside abatement may not be a continuation of the suit but is certainly a stage in the suit. So, in the instant case, till disposal of the said two appeals, the suit may be stayed. Thus, he submits that the learned Trial Judge is justified in granting the stay of the instant suit as prayed for. 13. SO, having considered the totality of the matter, I am of the view that the matter in issue and the parties of the Title Suit No.222 of 1997 are not the same as those of the previously instituted title suits bearing nos.23 of 1984 and 73 of 1984. SO, the essential conditions of stay under Section 10 of the C.P.C. have not been fulfilled. The learned Trial Judge was not, therefore, justified in allowing the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. by the impugned order. The learned Trial Judge has committed grave injustice in allowing the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. This revisional application is, therefore, quite maintainable. The submission of Mr. Mukherjee that the decision of the Division Bench need not be complied with and that in view of the decision of (2002) 1 CLT 430 (HC) order of stay is justified, cannot be accepted. SO, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 14. THE application, therefore, succeeds. It is allowed. THE impugned order is hereby set aside. The submission of Mr. Mukherjee that the decision of the Division Bench need not be complied with and that in view of the decision of (2002) 1 CLT 430 (HC) order of stay is justified, cannot be accepted. SO, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 14. THE application, therefore, succeeds. It is allowed. THE impugned order is hereby set aside. THE learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit peremptorily within six months from the date of communication of this order. He shall also follow the directions of the Division Bench that no unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties shall be granted while disposing of the suit. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. After delivery of the judgment, learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party, prays for stay of the order. Upon due consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view that no stay should be allowed. Accordingly, the prayer for stay is rejected.