HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5336 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order in I.A. No.13 of 2010 in O.S. No.34 of 2010 dated 17.07.2010 on the file of the Court of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, whereby an order of injunction was granted in favour of the respondent herein. Sri P.V. Ramana, Learned Counsel, has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent. Both the counsel agree that the Civil Revision Petition be disposed of at the stage of admission. Sri N. Subba Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S. No.109 of 2004, wherein initially an order of injunction was granted; and, on the said injunction being vacated, the respondent had preferred an appeal in CMA. No.663 of 2005 which was dismissed by this Court by order 20.10.2005. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the suit filed by the respondent itself was dismissed later, it was not open to the respondent herein to file a fresh suit in O.S. No.34 of 2010 before the Court of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam. Learned Counsel would also draw attention of this Court to Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 (for short ‘the Rules’) in support of his submission that, since an earlier suit was filed for the very same cause of action, a subsequent suit does not lie; and that allegations, touching upon the integrity of the Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam, were made. Sri P.V. Ramana, Learned Counsel for the respondent, would submit that the petitioner herein had subsequently filed O.S. No.117 of 210 before the Agent to the Government, Khammam along with I.A. No.47 of 2010; the Agent to Government, Khammam had transferred O.S. No.34 of 2010, pending before the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, to himself; and the matter is coming up on 21.01.2011 for orders being passed in the suits/I.As. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the suit filed by the respondent itself has been transferred to the Agent to Government, Khammam, the contentions regarding the applicability of Rule 8 of the Rules or to the earlier dismissal in O.S.No.109 of 2004 are wholly irrelevant. While Sri P.V. Ramana, Learned Counsel for the respondent, would submit that this fact has been suppressed in the revision, Sri N.Subba Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would vehemently deny the same. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the rival contentions in as much as both the suits in O.S. Nos.117 and 34 of 2010 filed by the petitioners and the respondent respectively are now pending adjudication before the Agent to the Government, Khammam, and are stated to have been posted to 21.01.2011. Since there is a dispute on the question of possession, and both the petitioners and the respondent claim to be in possession of the land in question and to have raised a standing crop thereon, I consider it appropriate to direct the Agent to the Government, Khammam to depute a responsible officer for sale of the standing crop, on its being harvested, in the presence of both the petitioners and the respondent, and to retain the proceeds thereof with him till the I.As. filed both by the petitioners and the respondent are finally disposed of; and, depending on the orders passed therein, to take further action to handover the amount realized on the sale of the standing crop to either of the parties. I have no reason to doubt that the I.As. would be disposed of expeditiously. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:31.12.2010 usd