HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2457 OF 2014 DATED 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.
BETWEEN Ch. Vinod Kumar …Petitioner And Nuthi Laxminarayana …Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2457 OF 2014
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
This Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order dated 09.07.2014 passed in I.ANo.104 of 2014 in O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial The trial Court allowed the afore said application filed by the respondent herein seeking stay of operation of further proceedings in O.S.No.11 of 2014. The petitioner herein filed the aforesaid suit seeking injunction against the respondent in respect of the following schedule property, which reads as under:
“ SUIT SCHEDULE:
The house plot measuring 241 square yards in Sy.No.79/71 of Garmilla Shivar within the limits of Mancherial Municipality R/M. Mancherial, Dist.Adilabad bounded by:
East: Land and house of Thoutam Chandraiah West: Road North: Land of Thoutam Laxminarayan South: Land sold to Anumula Prabhakar.”
Before the same trial Court, the respondent herein instituted the suit in O.S.No.277 of 2013 against the petitioner herein and two others in respect of the suit schedule property, which reads as under:
“ SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY:
All the open house plot measuring 242 square yards or 0.02 guntas situated under Sy.No.79/72-A of Garmilla village, Mancherial Mandal, within the limits of Mancherial Municipality, Mancherial, Adilabad District and the same is bounded by:
North: Land of Thoutam Laxminarayana South: Land of Thoutam laxminarayana East: Land of Thoutam Chandraiah West: Municipal Road.”
Assuming that the subject matter, cause of auction and issues in both the suits are directly and substantially one and the same, the respondent herein filed the aforesaid interlocutory application seeking stay of later suit. The interlocutory application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 9.7.2014 holding that issue involved in both the suits are one and the same; the main contestants are one and the same; the subject matter is also covered by Sy.No.79 except by numbers and also the extent of property is one and the same.
This Court perused the property schedules of both the suits and noticed that there are variations in respect of boundaries mentioned in both the suits and that the survey numbers are also different. In view of the same, the suit properties in both the suits are not one and the same. In the impugned order it was mentioned that the respondent herein was seeking stay of operation of further proceedings in OS.No.277 of 2013 whereas the respondent sought for stay of further proceedings in OS.No.11 of 2014 and therefore mistake was committed by the trial Court while drafting the order. However, since this Court has prima facie comes to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties in both the suits are different and the suit in O.S.No.277 of 2013 is at the stage of recording the evidence of defendants and the suit in O.S.No.11 of 2014 has not come to that stage, it is in the fitness of things to allow both the suits to continue independently.
In view thereof the order dated 9.7.2014 passed in I.A. No. 104 of 2014 in O.S.No.11 of 2014 is set aside and I.A.No.104 of 2014 in O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Mancherial is dismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 Msnro