THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.4516 of 2006 Dated:- 15th July, 2011 Between Kshyatriya Trinadha Dev …Petitioner AND Bala Mukunda Dev and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.4516 of 2006 ORDER:- Earlier, this Court, while passing orders in C.R.P.No.6621 of 2003, observed that orders passed in I.A.No.306 of 2000 in O.S.No.39 of 1994 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, which have become final by virtue of revision not being preferred against it, may require revision by this Court. Accordingly, this is a suo motu taken up revision. 2. The respondents herein have filed O.S.No.39 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, for declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction. The third defendant in the said suit filed I.A.No.306 of 2000 to stay suit in O.S.No.39 of 1994 till the disposal of the A.S.No.3014 of 1999 which was pending before this Court, to avoid controversial findings in the decrees. His case is that he filed O.S.No.88 of 1990 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, for partition of the properties against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.39 of 1994 and his uncle – Balram Dev. Item No.3 of the schedule in O.S.No.88 of 1990 is the subject matter in O.S.No.39 of 1994. Subsequently, O.S.No.88 of 1990 was dismissed and challenging the said order of dismissal, the third defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.3014 of 1999 before this Court. His main case is that since the parties in both the suits are same and the issues involved are also same and the major portion of the property is also one and the same, the subsequent suit in O.S.No.39 of 1994 has to be stayed till the disposal of A.S.No.3014 of 1999 pending before this Court. 3. Counter was filed denying the material averments made by the third defendant. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, having considered the rival contentions and the plaint averments in both the suits and holding that the parties to both the suits are one and the same and the major portion of the property is also same and issues involved are also one and the same, allowed I.A.No.306 of 2000. 4. Though Sri K.Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondents herein/defendants 2 to 6 in the I.A. tried to convince this court that the properties involved in both the suits are different, but however, he admitted that item No.1 of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.88 of 1990 is the subject matter in O.S.No.39 of 1994. His submission is that the records have been manipulated and taking advantage of the same, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.88 of 1990 were claiming the property in Item No.1 of the schedule in O.S.No.88 of 1990. 5. We are not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the parties in this revision. Suffice to say that the Court below, having considered that the parties are one and the same in both the suits and the issues involved are also one and the same, allowed the petition. I do not see any reason to interfere with the said findings and the reasoned order of the Court below. The revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed, but however, without any order as to costs. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 15th July, 2011 Bvv