THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1225 OF 2024

ORDER:

1 This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 17.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.548 of 2023 in O.S.No.107 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, wherein and whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of the suit was dismissed.

2 Heard Sri Aedula Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff.

3 Petitioners herein are defendants in the above said suit. The case of the petitioners is that they along with others filed a suit vide O.S.No.69 of 2022 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir for declaration that the petitioners are the owners of the suit schedule properties and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent / plaintiff from entering into the suit schedule property and for rectification of entries in the concerned records in the office of Tahsildar, Choutuppal Mandal in respect of the suit schedule property therein. The respondent /plaintiff got filed his vakalat on 07.12.2022 in the said suit and suppressing the said fact, the respondent / plaintiff field the present suit O.S.No.107 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal. The contention of the petitioners is that the suit schedule property in both the suits is one and the same and that the respondent / plaintiff is also one of the defendants in the said suit and that the said suit is still pending adjudication. Hence the petitioners filed I.A.No.548 of 2023 in O.S.No.107 of 2023 seeking to stay of the suit.

4 Denying the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners, the respondent / plaintiff filed counter affidavit before the Court below contending that by showing wrong boundaries in O.S.No.69 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, the petitioners / defendants have filed the above said suit to occupy the land of the respondent / plaintiff on 05.4.2023 and 23.4.2023. Therefore, he filed the present suit and obtained interim orders to protect his land from the petitioners / defendants. It is his further contention that the parties are not one and the same in both the suits and the schedule of the properties is also different and hence the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for.

5 The trial Court, having appreciated the relevant provision of law and the case law cited by both the parties, dismissed the said petition. Hence the present civil revision petition.

6 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the respondent / plaintiff had deliberately suppressed the factum of pendency of the previous suit O.S.No.69 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, which attracts the doctrine of sub judice. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C.Parameshwara, [2004 LawSuit (SC) 1500] and Aspi Jal and Anr v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, [AIR 2013 SC 1712] in support of his contentions.

7 On 19.4.2024 this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings, vide orders in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in this CRP. The respondent filed affidavit seeking to vacate the said interim stay. His contention before this Court is reiterating the stand taken before the Court below. It is his further contention that as the petitioners herein tried to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property, he was forced to file O.S.no.107 of 2023 for injunction and obtained orders of interim injunction in his favour, which is subsisting.

8 Now the point for consideration is whether the parties to the suit in O.S.No.107 of 2023 and O.S.69 of 2022 are one and the same and the properties