IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3454 OF 2006 Between:- Kavuru Ramakrishna …Petitioner A n d Yadra Buli Venkanna and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3454 OF 2006 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05-06-2006 in C.M.A.No.10 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner/D-1, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 03-04-2006 in I.A.No.481 of 2006 in O.S.No.190 of 2006, on the file of the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from encroaching into or making any constructions in any part of plots ‘A’ and ‘B and Manduva area shown as ‘K’ in the plaint plan or extending their constructions in the common lanes on the east, west and south and not to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also for recovery of Rs.3,000/- towards the value of the doors allegedly removed and taken away by the petitioner/D-1 from the portion of the plaintiffs. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.481 of 2006 for ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The petitioner/D-1 filed a counter opposing the said application inter alia on the ground that earlier the plaintiffs filed a similar suit O.S.No.326 of 1992 for the self-same relief in respect of the same property and the said suit was decreed on 17- 08-2001 and the said judgment and decree became final and, therefore, the present suit between the same parties for the self-same relief, in respect of the same property is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 11 CPC. The petitioner/D-1 would, therefore, contend that as the suit itself is not maintainable, the application for interim injunction is also not maintainable. The trial Court allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit and the petitioner/D-1 preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.10 of 2006 and by the impugned order, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. Hence, the present civil revision petition. 4. The impugned order refers to the plea raised by petitioner/D-1 in respect of the bar contained in Section 11 CPC over the maintainability of the suit but, however, observed that D-1 did not choose to file written statement and did not seek for framing the preliminary issue about maintainability of the suit. If the earlier judgment and decree in O.S.No.326 of 1992 operates as res judicata then the suit itself would not be maintainable and in which event the question of granting temporary injunction does not also arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner/D-1 would submit that subsequently written statement was also filed specifically raising the plea that the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 11 CPC. When that is so, it is only just and proper that the trial Court take up the same as a preliminary issue inasmuch as according to the petitioner/D-1, the earlier suit O.S.No.318 of 1992 is in respect of the same property and for the same relief and in between the same parties. The relief of recovery of damages is, however, a different and distinct relief altogether, which may have to be considered on its merits. But, insofar as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the trial Court has to necessarily consider whether the suit in respect of the said relief is maintainable in view of the judgment and decree in the earlier suit O.S.No.326 of 1992. 5. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction and till such time, the preliminary issue pertaining to res judicata under Section 11 CPC is decided, the injunction already granted in favour of the plaintiffs shall remain in force. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th February, 2011 Lrkm.