( 1 ) THE civil revision petition is preferred as against an order made in LA. No. 700 of 1999 in O. S. No. 726 of 1995 dated 5. 10. 1999, on the file of the i Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in the said application is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 726 of 1995, on the file of the I Additional Junior civil Judge, Chittoor. The application was filed under Sections 10 and 151 of CPC, praying for stay of further proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of the suit property.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 726 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, chittoor for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of a house site granted by the government under a patta. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant tried to interfere with his possession and hence he filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was also averred in the affidavit that after the institution of the suit, the defendant had obtained suspension of the house site patta by filing an appeal before the Revenue divisional Officer and since the very operation of the suit document was suspended by the competent authority the revenue Divisional Officer, he is unable to further proceed with the suit and hence he prayed for stay of all further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

( 4 ) THE defendant had filed a detailed counter and had opposed the application. The Court below had dismissed the application observing that the proceeding be fore the revenue authorities allegedly pending, cannot by itself be a ground for seeking stay of further proceedings in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present crp is filed.

( 5 ) SRI Srinivas, learned Counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar had contended that unless the dispute is resolved by the revenue authorities, the Civil court cannot decide anything and though section 10 CPC is not applicable, under section 151 CPC exercising inherent powers stay can be granted. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 sc 2085 and also N. S. Mills v. Union of india, AIR 1976 SC 1152 and contended that the Court can exercise the discretion by invoking the powers under Section 151 c. P. C. and grant stay.

( 6 ) SRI Vijayachandra Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent had contended that Section 10 CPC is not applicable since a revenue proceeding is not a suit within the meaning of Section 10 cpc and inherent powers cannot override the express provisions and had placed reliance on Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, air 1964 SC 993, Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, air 1962 SC 527, Minocher Behramji damania v. Hema N. Dadachanji and others, air 1982 Bom. 151. The learned Counsel had further contended that the suit was filed in the year 1985 and this application was thought of after a long lapse of time and that itself shows that it is not a bona fide application. The learned Counsel also contended that even otherwise it is within the discretion of the Court either to grant stay or not to grant stay in a matter of this nature and inasmuch as the Court below had exercised such discretion had rightly arrived at the conclusion not to grant stay, it is not a case for interference under Section 115 cpc.

( 7 ) HAVING heard both the Counsel and having perused the material on record, now the question that has to be decided is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case stay of the suit can be granted under Section 151 CPC exercising the inherent powers of the Court. In Kondapaneni Raghavalah and another v. Inguva Lakshminarayana and another, AIR 1955 Andhra 4, it was held that in order to attract the terms of Section 151 CPC, two conditio