ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 816 of 2018 in O.S. No. 466 of 1989, in dismissing the application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 466 of 1987, before the learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur, seeking for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents herein.

3. In the said suit, the petitioners herein filed interlocutory application in I.A. No. 816 of 2018, under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of C.P.C to stay the entire proceedings of the suit in O.S. No. 466 of 1987, till the disposal of the S.A. No. 7 of 2014 pending on the file of this Court, which was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 06.10.2018. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan submitted that the above said application was filed due to the reason that the brother of the revision petitioner filed a partition suit in O.S. No. 49 of 2000, which was decreed, as against which A.S. No. 16 of 2011 was filed and the same was allowed and as against the same, S.A. No. 71 of 2014 is filed before this Court and the same is pending. Therefore under such circumstances, the above said interlocutory application has been filed to stay the entire proceedings of the suit in O.S. No. 466 of 1987, till the disposal of the S.A. No. 7 of 2014.

5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 466 of 1987 is mentioned as item no. 7 of the suit schedule properties in O.S. No. 49 of 2000 which was filed for partition, In case, if the said property is alloted to some body else, the petitioners may not have any right over the same and therefore in such circumstances, the proceedings in O.S. No. 466 of 1987, is unnecessary and it would ultimately waste the precious time of the Court. Thus, in order to avoid the same, the above interlocutory application was filed. However, without considering the said aspects, the court below dismissed the application and therefore the same warrants interference.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the suit in O.S. No. 466 of 1987 is pending for about 30 years and further the respondents/defendants are not parties to the partition suit in O.S. No. 49 of 2000 and therefore the Judgment to be passed by this Court in the Second Appeal will not bind them. He further submitted that the proceedings may go on in O.S. No. 466 of 1987, pending disposal of the Second Appeal.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

8. Upon hearing the submissions made on either side, this Court finds that O.S. No. 466/1987 was filed by the petitioners, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction of the suit schedule property, with regard to Survey No. 4/2. The brother of the petitioners filed O.S. No. 49/2000 for partition in O.S. No. 466 of 1987 against the petitioners. Further the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 466 of 1987 was mentioned as item no. 7 of the suit schedule properties in O.S. No. 49 of 2000.

9. The main contention raised by the revision petitioners is that if the rights of the suit schedule property will be decided in the partition suit and if the said the suit is decreed as prayed for and in case the property may be allotted to any one of the co-sharers other than the plaintiffs, then the continuation of the present suit is unnecessary and therefore it will be appropriate to stay the proceeding. He further submitted that the suit was filed by the revision petitioners herein and the interest of the respondents are not going to be affected any way.

10. It is true that the suit was pending for the past 30 years, due the reason that at some point of time, suit was dismissed for default, which was restored and thereafter the petitio