THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.247 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated 05.09.2023 in I.A.No.563 of 2022 in O.S.No.163 of 2022, passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of CPC, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri G.Venkat Narayana, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri J.Sai Ram, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. Petitioners herein are defendants and respondent is plaintiff in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of the present revision petition are that respondent filed a suit vide O.S.No.163 of 2022, against petitioners, for perpetual injunction, in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-09 gts in Sy.No.633 Aam/1, situated at Mothkur Village and Mandal of Yadadri- Bhongir District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’); that pending adjudication of the suit, petitioners filed an application vide I.A.No.563 of 2022 under Section 11 of CPC, to dismiss the suit on the ground of res-judicata; that respondent filed the counter affidavit resisting the said application.

5. The trial Court on due consideration of pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parties, dismissed the application vide impugned Order dated 05.09.2023, with an observation that Section 11 of C.P.C has no application since the subject matter of the suits vide O.S.No.37 of 1994 and O.S.No.1 of 1996, are different and even the parties are also different and thus, came to the conclusion that application is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is filed.

6. Learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that the trial Court while adjudicating the matter, has not followed the circular issued by this Court vide ROC.No.2750/OP Cell, dated 28.02.2021, wherein this Court directed the trial Courts to mark the documents filed by the parties to the interlocutory applications in accordance with Rules 50 and 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice, before deciding the applications and thus, the impugned Order is unsustainable. He further submitted that the suit filed by the respondent is hit by Section 11 of C.P.C, since the rights of the parties have already been decided in O.S.No.37 of 1994 and O.S.No.1 of 1996 and appeal against it vide A.S.No.1 of 2004, including the claim of respondents and thus, the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the application. He also submitted that the suit schedule property involved in O.S.No.37 of 1994, which was decreed much earlier, includes the suit schedule property in O.S.No.163 of 2022. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application instead of dismissing the same and thus, prayed to allow the revision petition.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the subject property in the present suit and the subject property in O.S.No.37 of 1994 and O.S.No.1 of 1996 are different and even the parties are also different, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, as Section 11 of CPC can be invoked only when issue involved in the suit is directly and substantially is same as that of issue in a previous suit between the same parties and the same has been decided finally in a previous suit. He further submitted that O.S.No.37 of 1994, was filed for declaration of title and for consequential injunction in respect of land admeasuring Acs.6-07 gts in Sy.Nos.633, 632 and 652 of Mothkur village and the present suit is filed only for injunction simpliciter only in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-09 gts in Sy.No.633/1 and even the parties in O.S.No.37 of 1994 and O.S.No.163 of 2022 are not one and the same and thus the application filed under Section 11 of CPC is not maintainable and no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned Order passed by the trial Court and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision petition.