The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 10 of CPC, 1908 to prevent simultaneous trials on the same issue by two courts and the requirement for identity of the matter in issue in both suits.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A. No. 30/2022 in O.S. No. 361/2014 dated 09.05.2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and 2nd respondent is the 2nd defendant.

3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed suit vide O.S. No. 361/2014 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for recovery of Rs.100/- (Rupees hundred only) per month for unauthorized use and occupation. In the said suit, the petitioner filed present I.A. No. 30/2022 under Section 10 of CPC, 1908 praying the Court to stay trial of the above suit till the disposal of the appeal in A.S. No. 11/2018 arising out of previously instituted suit by plaintiff herein in O.S. No. 431/2008 on the file of learned I additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Bhimavaram on the ground that both suits are between the same parties and the property and pleadings in both the suits are one and the same. The main issue involved is also same including the schedule property, and the suit O.S. No. 431/2008 was decreed on 22.01.2018 and aggrieved thereby an appeal vide A.S. No. 11/2018 was preferred by the defendants and now in order to avoid simultaneous entertaining and adjudicating of both suits of two parallel litigation in respect of same cause of action, same subject matter and same relief in the present suit on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, which is pending consideration. Opposing the said application, plaintiff has filed his counter. After hearing the same, the Court below has dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.

4. Heard Sri Siva Nagarjun, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri E.V.S.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for first respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds contended that, O.S. No. 431/2008 has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession which has been decreed on 22.01.2018, aggrieved by the same the defendants in the present suit preferred an appeal vide A.S. No. 11/2008 which is pending consideration. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, pending consideration of the said appeal, the plaintiff once again filed the present suit vide O.S. No. 361/2014 for the very same relief between the same parties on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, in order to avoid simultaneous trying of two parallel suits despite being same matter in the issue, the present application I.A. No. 30/2022 has been filed under Section 10 of CPC, 1908 and has drawn the attention of this Court to the said provision. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the prayer sought in O.S. No. 431/2008 and also to the prayer sought in O.S. No. 361/2014 which are placed on record and submitted that, this case squarely falls within the contingencies that are required for consideration of Section 10 of CPC, 1908. He further submitted that, the Court below has erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that the relief sought in O.S. No. 431/2008 is for declaration and for recovery of possession and whereas the present suit is filed for declaration, recovery of possession and also for payment of rents, as such Section 10 does not apply on the ground that the nature of the reliefs are different in both the suits. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied on the judgment of Madras High Court in Radhika Konel Paresh vs. Konel Parekh, AIR 1993 Madras 90. The relevant portion reads as follows:

“...22. It is not in dispute that the child is below five years. Ordinarily thus the custody has to be with the mother. The mother has accordingly prayed for a decree for such a cu