THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.900 OF 2011 Dated:10.06.2011 Between: G.V.Lakshmi, represented by her General Power of Attorney G.Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 53 years, R/O.D.No.18-3-48F, Khadi Colony, Tirupathi .. Petitioner And S.Omprakash .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.900 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1855 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. She instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property which is a site admeasuring Ac.0.15 cents (0.060 hectares) in Survey No.7/7B of Mangalam Village Accounts, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. The suit is coming up for trial. About seven years after instituting the suit, she filed I.A.No.105 of 2011 purportedly under Section 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Court below to stay the suit pending disposal of the appeal being A.S.No.191 of 2010 preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.815 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The application having been dismissed, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant had filed O.S.No.815 of 2004 for permanent injunction in respect of entire extent of land in Survey No.7/7B; that the same was decreed; that aggrieved by the same, her father had filed A.S.No.191 of 2010 which is pending and therefore the present suit shall be stayed. The respondent/defendant however opposed the application inter alia contending that an application under Section 10 CPC is not maintainable when the plaintiff is claiming property not through her father but through independent right. Considering the rival contentions, the Court below dismissed the application. The issue before the Court below was whether the matter in issue in both the suits is same or not. In addition to this, such earlier suit must be between the same parties or between the parties through whom they or any of them claim title and such suit must be pending in the same Court. In this case admittedly the plaintiff is claiming independent right and therefore Section 10 CPC ex facie has no application. Further the suit was instituted in 2004. By that time, the defendant had filed O.S.No.815 of 2004 against the father of the plaintiff. If that be so, it is not clear as to why the plaintiff waited so long without moving an application under Section 10 CPC. Having not done so, she cannot now be permitted to file such an application after lapse of seven years especially when she is claiming independent right. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 10.06.2011 KH