IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3650 of 2010 BETWEEN: Isanaka Ananda Mohan Reddy and another. ... PETITIONER AND Isanaka Sudhakar Reddy and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. O. MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. P. SRIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants in the suit O.S.No.126 of 2004 pending on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore against the order dated 01.05.2010 passed in I.A.No.1099 of 2009. 2. By the impugned order the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking stay was dismissed. 3. The suit O.S.No.126 of 2004 is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for partition of the plaint schedule properties located at Epuru Bit 1 village. Six items of lands located in different survey numbers of Epuru Bit 1 are shown in the plaint schedule for their partition among the respondents/plaintiffs and defendants. They are all together 15 parties in the said suit including State of Andhra Pradesh. The present application is filed on the ground that earlier also the suit O.S.No.63 of 1998 was filed for partition and on dismissal of the suit, appeal was filed before this Court in A.S.No.948 of 2001, as such, the proceedings in the present suit are sought to be stayed. However, the Court below mainly on the ground that suit schedule properties in both the suits are altogether different and parties are different rejected the application by the impugned order. 4. In this revision petition it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that part of the properties were common in the present suit and the earlier suit O.S.No.63 of 1998 and in that view of the matter, the Court below ought to have allowed the application. It may that a part of the schedule properties is common in both the matters but in addition to the common schedule properties, which are mentioned in the present suit, the earlier suit was filed with regard to some other properties located at Epuru Bit1 and Bit 1A and Bit 1B villages. Though some parties are common, some parties, which are not parties in the present suit, were parties in the earlier suit. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the issue in the present suit is directly and substantially an issue in the earlier suit instituted between the same parties within the meaning of Section 10 CPC. For that reason, the Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner to stay the proceedings. As such, I do not find any ground or merit in the revision petition, which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 13, 2010 DSK