ORDER :

A few facts are necessary for a proper consideration of the issue raised in this Civil Revision Petition. The 2nd respondent herein had purchased the property under dispute from one of her brothers under a Registered Deed of Sale dated 13.10.2005. Thereafter, she executed a Registered Deed of Gift dated 16.06.2009 in favour of her son, who is the 1st respondent herein.

2. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.179 of 2009 against the 2nd respondent and subsequently added the 1st respondent. This suit was filed for specific performance of a possessory agreement of sale dated 13.10.2005 and alternatively, for refund of the consideration paid under the agreement of sale along with interest. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.305 of 2009 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada which was transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada and renumbered as O.S.No.226 of 2010. This suit was filed against the petitioner herein, for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner and persons claiming through him, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the 1st respondent over the property under dispute. Both the suits were tried together and both the suits were dismissed by a Judgment dated 28.04.2014. In this Judgment, the trial Judge disbelieved the possessory agreement of sale dated 13.10.2005 and subsequent payments and dismissed the suit. Similarly the trial Judge came to the view that the petitioner was in possession of the property in dispute and 1st respondent was not in possession of the property under dispute, and dismissed the suit, filed for injunction. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.83 of 2015 against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.179 of 2009 before the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada.

3. The respondents herein have filed a fresh suit, O.S.No.318 of 2015 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, against the petitioner, for declaration of the title over the property and delivery of the possession of the same and for mesne profits for the years 2012-13 to 2014-15 and for future profits. This suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner had forcibly occupied the suit schedule property during the pendency of O.S.No.179 of 2009 and O.S.No.226 of 2010.

4. At present, both O.S.No.318 of 2015 and A.S.No.83 of 2015 are pending before the courts. The petitioner had moved I.A.No.200 of 2020 in O.S.No.318 of 2015 under Section 10 of C.P.C., on the ground that the subject matter of the suit is one and the same, and that the trial Court should stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.318 of 2015 till the disposal of A.S.No.83 of 2015 on the file of XI additional District Judge, Gudivada. This application was dismissed by the trial Court, by an order dated 25.11.2020 holding that the facts of the case do not make out the requirements of Section 10 of C.P.C.

5. Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property in dispute, in both the appeal and the suit is one and the same and the parties to the proceedings are also one and the same. He contends that since the reliefs sought in both these proceedings are at cross purposes, it would have to be held that the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C would be applicable and the proceedings in O.S.No.318 of 2015 should be stayed as these proceedings are subsequent proceedings.

6. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the cause of action for these suits are different and the findings in one proceeding do not in any manner affect findings in the second proceeding and as such, the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C. would not be applicable and there is no justification for interfering with the order of the trial Court.

7. Both sides have relied upon various Judgments which are given below:

1) British India Corporation Limited Vs. Rashtraco Freight Carriers, (1996) 4 SCC 748.

2) Madala Siva Kasirathna Prameela Rani and another vs. Ambati Janardhan