Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Madala Siva Kasirathna Prameela Rani ... vs Ambati Janardhana Rao S/O Late ... on 28 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(5)ALD680, 2007 (1) ABR (NOC) 203 (AP), 2006 A I H C 3434, 2007 (1) AIR BOM R 203, (2006) 5 ANDHLD 680, (2007) 1 CIVILCOURTC 153, (2006) 6 ANDH LT 211, 2006 AIHC 3434
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioners-plaintiffs as against the order made in I.A. No. 161 of 2006 in O.S. No. 185 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District, dismissing the application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience). The petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No. 185 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants and the first respondent-first defendant in O.S. No. 185 of 2001 filed a suit in O.S. No. 270 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet praying for the relief of partition and other ancillary reliefs. The stand taken by the revision petitioners is that in view of the fact that the suit filed by the first respondent-first defendant in O.S.No.270 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet being comprehensive suit and this suit being a suit for mere permanent injunction, this suit to be stayed till the disposal of O.S. No. 270 of 2005 aforesaid. The learned Judge recorded certain reasons at Paras 6,7,8 and 9 of the order and ultimately came to the conclusion that the application is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the same without costs. Section 10 of the Code dealing with stay of suits reads as hereunder: Section 10: "No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court".
2. The suit in O.S. No. 185 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli was instituted in earlier point of time and no doubt, it is a suit for permanent injunction. Later on, suit O.S. 270 of 2005 was filed by the first respondent-first defendant on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for partition. In Karri Satyanarayana v. Pichika Veerraju , the learned Judge of this Court held that application of Section 10 of the Code, identity of subject matter in the earlier and subsequent suit required and all the issues in both the suits must be same, and the provision cannot be invoked if one of the questions in issue is only same. The learned Judge also held that Section 10 of the Code as it is, does not speak about as to which Court, whether the Court before which the previously instituted suit or the subsequently instituted suit is pending can validly and legally pass an order staying of a suit. But the language of Section 10 is quite clear and it mandates the Court before which the subsequently instituted suit is pending not to proceed with the trial of such suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, etc. In a case where the conditions prescribed in Section 10 of the Code co- exist for stay of suit, an application under Section 10 of the Code should be made before the Court where the subsequent suit is pending. This interpretation would be in consonance with the clear mandate of Section 10 of the Code. In fact, the learned Judge on appreciation of the ratio laid down in the afore said decision after recording the reasons, ultimately, dismissed the application. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.