IMPORTANT POINT
Court shall not proceed trial of any suit, in which matter in issue directly and substantially in issue, previously instituted, suit between same parties, under whom any of them claim litigating under same title and such suit pending in same or any other Court having jurisdiction.

M. Seetharama Murti, J.—This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiffs/respondents assailing the orders dated 12.09.2012 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa of Srikakulam District made in I.A. No.239 of 2012 in O.S. No.28 of 2012 filed by the first defendant under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting to grant stay of all further proceedings in the aforementioned suit pending disposal of O.S.No.29 of 2011 on the file of the same Court.

2. The basic facts necessary for consideration are as follows: The instant suit O.S. No.28/2012 (the subsequent suit for brevity) was brought by the plaintiffs 1 to 3/revision petitioners herein and the plaintiff no.4 against the defendants/respondents herein for perpetual injunction to restrain the first defendant and his men, relatives etcetera from ever interfering with the said plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule immoveable property. The first defendant is resisting the said suit. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.28/2012 had brought the first suit O.S. No. 29 of 2011 (the previously instituted suit for brevity) against the plaintiffs 2 and 4 in O.S. No.28/2012 and others as defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of the wet land in an extent of Ac.1.69 cents in Survey No.15/1 situated in Dabbapadu village, Miriyyappalli Cluster of Laxminarusupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. The defendant in the subsequent suit, who had previously instituted his suit for perpetual injunction, had sought stay of the subsequent suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On merits, the trial Court had allowed the petition and stayed the suit in O.S. No.28/2012, which is a subsequent suit. Aggrieved of the said orders, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the subsequent suit had filed the present revision petition.

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record.

4. Now the point for determination in the Civil Revision Petition is - Whether the first defendant in O.S. No.28/2012 has made out valid and sufficient grounds for granting stay of the said subsequent suit pending final disposal of the previously instituted suit O.S. No.29/2011, which is also pending on the file of the very same Court?

5. POINT:

5. (a) The introductory facts are already stated supra. In the first instance, One P.Seetharam as plaintiff brought a suit in O.S. No.29/2011 against Palli Rajulamma, Palli Krishnaveni, Challa Lakshmi, Challa Ramanamurthy and Ravada Sriramulu for a perpetual injunction in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.69 cents (0.68 hectares) in Survey No.15/1 situated at Dabbapadu village, Miriyyappalli Cluster of Laxminarusupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. Whileso, the defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit viz., Palli Rajulamma, Palli Krishnaveni, Challa Lakshmi and another Ravada Vijayalakshmi as the plaintiffs brought the subsequent suit in O.S. No.28/2012 for perpetual injunction against Pirla Sitharam, who is the plaintiff in the previously instituted suit O.S. No.29/2011, and another in respect of three items of property of an extent of Ac.0.13 cents each situated at survey No.15/1 of the same village. Thus, the plaintiff in O.S. No.29/2011 is the first defendant in O.S. No.28/2012. Further, the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 in the subsequent suit O.S.No.28/2012 are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No.29/2011, the previously instituted suit. In the said circumstances, stay of the subsequent suit was sought till the final disposal of the previously instituted suit on the following grounds: The subsequent suit was instituted while the trial in the previously instituted suit was in progress i.e., after the PW1 was examined and the matter was coming for further evidence. The schedules of properties in both the suits are one and the same. Therefore, it is necessary to stay the subsequent suit pending final disposal of the previously instituted suit to