HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3851 OF 2011 DATE:23-09-2011 BETWEEN Yarlagadda Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner AND Pamulapati Hymavathi and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3851 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioner-plaintiff who is sub-lessee under the respondents- defendants filed O.S.No.331 of 2006 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule premises. Pending the suit, he obtained ex parte temporary injunction in I.A.No.87 of 2006. While the said I.A. and the suit were taken up for hearing, he filed impugned I.A.No.117 of 2010 under Section 10 of C.P.C. for staying the proceedings in the suit on the ground that he filed W.P.No.11964 of 2009 before this Court and obtained status quo order with regard to his possession over the property and therefore, until the said writ petition is decided, result of which will have a bearing on the rights of the petitioner, the present suit cannot be proceeded with. By order dated 8.6.2011 V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissed the said I.A. It is that order which is impugned in this revision. Admittedly, the issue involved in the present suit and in W.P.No.11964 of 2009 is different. On cancellation of the lease by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation granted in favour of the respondents herein, who are the lessors of the petitioner, for violating the condition of sub-leasing the property, respondents herein filed W.P.No.937 of 2006 and 2897 of 2006. Whereas the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.11964 of 2009. Whether the respondents have violated the conditions of the lease by sub-leasing the property and whether the sub-lessee (petitioner) is entitled to be recognized as a lessee or the property should be put to auction are all the matters to be decided in the said writ petition. In the present case, whether the petitioner, who obtained the lease from the respondents is entitled to permanent injunction against the respondents or not is the issue that has to be decided in the suit. Further the Court below is under obligation to decide the I.A. whether the ex parte injunction granted in favour of the petitioner is within the statutory period of 30 days. The impugned so passed by the lower Court dismissing I.A.No.117 of 2010 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 Tsr.