Point of law: If matter in later suit is found to be “directly and substantially in issue” in previously instituted suit, later suit is liable to be stayed under Section - 10 of C.P.C.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 in I.A. No.368 of 2021 in I.A. No.283 of 2021 in O.S. No.144 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, the present Civil Revision Case is filed.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE:

i) Respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit vide O.S. No.130 of 2021 against the petitioner herein and 2 others i.e., Mr. K. Rajeshwar Reddy and Mr. A. Devender Reddy, seeking the following relief:

“1. Decree be passed for cancellation of Registered agreement of sale cum GPA No.6656/2016, dated: 19-05-2016, SRO Mahabubnagar obtained by Defendant No.1 by fraud from the plaintiff is illegal and void document in respect of suit schedule land and alienation of suit land by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 and 3 and every subsequent sale deed are illegal and void documents.

2. Issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right over the suit schedule land.

3. Costs of the suit be awarded.”

ii) The petitioner herein had filed a suit vide O.S. No.144 of 2021 against the respondents herein for the following relief:

“i) To pass perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their followers, and their men or any other persons from interfering with lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

ii) To award the costs of the suit.

iii) To grant such any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff is entitled and this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, in circumstances of the case.”

iii) In both the suits, the suit schedule property is one and the same i.e., the land in Survey No.46/1, Dry Land to an extent Acs.4-15 guntas, situated at Yaronipally Village of Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

iv) Along with O.S. No.144 of 2021, the petitioner herein had also filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.283 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunction and the same was granted.

v) Thereafter, the respondents herein had filed an application under Section - 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) vide I.A. No.368 of 2021 in I.A. No.283 of 2021 in O.S. No.144 of 2021, to stay further proceedings in O.S. No.144 of 2021 till the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.130 of 2021 on the following grounds:

a) They have already filed a suit vide O.S. No.130 of 2021 against the petitioner herein;

b) A notice was ordered;

c) The said suit is pending;

d) Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot file a suit in respect of the very same land; and

e) As per Section - 10 of the C.P.C., all proceedings of subsequent suit i.e., O.S. No.144 of 2021 filed by the petitioner herein to be stayed.

vi) The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein stating that the relief sought by him is different and the same will not fall within the ambit of Section - 10 of the C.P.C. Therefore, both the suits have to be tried and decided.

vii) Vide order dated 15.03.2022, the Court below has allowed the said application on the ground that the property involves in both the suits is one and the same, but the relief claimed is different. There is a chance of arising complications in future if findings are different in both the suits. With the said findings, the Court below has stayed the proceedings in O.S. No.144 of 2021 till the disposal of O.S. No.130 of 2021.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

i) Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order is against the material on record and against the conditions specified in Section - 10 of the C.P.C.

ii) The relief sought in both the suits are different though some of the parties are common and suit schedule property is one and the same. However, at the most, both the suits can be tried together by clubbing the same.

iii) There is no consideration of the said aspects by the Court below in the impugned order.

iv) In support of his submissions, learned