Back
2011 Supreme(AP) 574
2011 (6) ALT 761
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
R. KANTHA RAO
Parchuri Sivaram Prasad
Versus
Balatripura Sundari
Civil Revision Petition No.2549 of 2011
DECIDED ON : 29-07-2011
For the Petitioners:Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T. Sujan Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 10 and 151 - Criminal Procedure code 1973 - Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 145 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 – Suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction - Registered gift settlement deed - Seeking of temporary injunction - Suffer irreparable loss and injury - Challenging legality and correctness of the order - Petitioner is brother of respondent, She filed OS for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule land - Claim on a registered gift settlement deed vide document executed by her father - In the said suit, Petitioner filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the Revision Petitioner from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of suit schedule land - Learned Senior Civil Judge, Granted temporary injunction exparte and subsequently on hearing both sides order was made absolute - Learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the petition - Held, Provision lays down that Court shall not proceed with the trial of a suit in which the matter in issue like thereto directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit between the same parties. From the language of Section-10 it is obvious that only the trial of the subsequent suit is stayed if the conditions envisaged in provision are satisfied. There is no prohibition as such for passing any interlocutory order in subsequently instituted suit - Object underlying provision is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from recording conflicting findings on the same issue because any such finding recorded in earlier suit would operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. Either the institution of the subsequent suit or passing interlocutory orders in said suit are not barred - By virtue of section 10 even where the subsequent suit is liable to be stayed the jurisdiction or power of the court where subsequent suit is instituted, in so far as entertaining interlocutory applications and passing orders therein is not affected - It cannot be said that Senior Civil Judge acted illegally either in passing the order granting interim injunction or the order granting police aid - Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant against the order dated 21-4-2011 in IA.No. 515 of 2011 in I.A.No. 34 of 2011 in OS.No. 11 of 2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhodan, Nizamabad district, allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to grant police-aid by way of directing the Station House Officer, Bhodan [R] Police Station to protect the possession of the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Sri T. Sujan Kumar, the learned counsel representing the respondent.
3. The Revision Petitioner is the brother of the respondent. She filed OS.No. 11 of 2011 for declaration of the title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule land bearing survey No.207/AA and survey No. 210/E/1 admeasuring to an extent of Ac:3-24 gts and 0-27 gts., respectively, total extent Ac:3-11 guntas situated at Pentakurd villasge of Bodhan Mandal. She based her claim on a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.. 141/99, dated 18-1-1999 executed by her father. In the said suit, she filed I.A.No. 34 of 2011 seeking temporary injunction restraining the Revision Petitioner from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan granted temporary injunction exparte on 04-2-2011 and subsequently on hearing both sides the order was made absolute on 21-2-2011. Thereafter, the respondent filed I.A.No. 515 of 2011 before the learned Senior Civil Judge under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to grant police-aid for implementation of temporary injunction order by way of restraining the Revision Petitioner from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. The learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the petition, granted police-aid and issued a direction to the Station House Officer, Bodhan Police Station (Rural) to protect the possession of the plaintiff-respondent and to enforce the temporary injunction order.
4. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order, the Revision Petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
5. It is a matter of record that earlier to the suit instituted by the respondent i.e., OS.No.11 of 2011, the Revision Petitioner filed OS.No.48 of 2010 in the same Court seeking the reliefs, namely; a declaration that the suit schedule land is the ancestral joint family property left by late Parchuri Venkateswara Rao, the father of the parties and also cancellation of registered gift settlement deed, vide document No. 141/99, dated 18-1-1999 executed by the father of the respondent in her favour . While the said suit was pending, at the instance of the respondent, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bodhan initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the Revision Petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 10964 of 2010 to quash the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The learned single Judge considering that the dispute between the parties was pending before the Civil Court in I.A.No. 251 of 2010 in OS.No. 48 of 2010 quashed the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bodhan and observed that it is open to the parties to approach Civil Court for appropriate reliefs in the pending suit, subsequently, the respondent filed OS.No.11 of 2011 against the Revision Petitioner for the reliefs afore-mentioned. Therefore in substance, the subject matter of the dispute in both the suits is the same and the issue involved for consideration is also substantially same.
6. The Revision Petitioner filed I.A.No. 251 of 2010 in OS.No.48 of 2010 seeking the relief of temporary injunction against the respondent and the said application was dismissed on 08-7-2010. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred CMA.No. 21 of 2011 which is now pending before VII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad at Bodhan. In
