THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4106 of 2010 ORDER This revision is directed against the order, dated 16.07.2010, passed by the learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, dismissing I.A.No.301 of 2009 in O.S.No.414 of 2007 filed under Order X CPC seeking to stay the proceedings in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum-Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam, until O.S.No.414 of 2007 is disposed of. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff states that the first respondent having offered to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-entered into contract with him and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.04.2006 as advance. Subsequently, the first respondent informed him through a letter, dated 20.10.2006, stating that he sold the suit schedule property to the second respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.2695 of 2006 on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for permanent injunction and obtained ad ex parte interim injunction restraining the respondents from evicting him from the suit schedule property. The petitioner also filed R.C.C.No.59 of 2006 in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, for deposit of rents and that as per the directions of the said Court, he is depositing the rents in the Court. While so, the second respondent filed R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 in the same Court for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property. The suit being O.S.No.2695 of 2006 was transferred from VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to IV Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, for joint trial along with R.C.C.No.3 of 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.414 of 2007 for specific performance of contract. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.301 of 2009 seeking to stay the proceedings in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 till the suit is disposed of, and the same was dismissed by the Court below holding that the issue in the suit is not directly and substantially in issue in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the matter in issue in O.S.No.414 of 2007 is directly and substantially in issue in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 as the parties, pleadings and the property are one and the same and thus, he prays to stay the proceedings in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 till the suit is disposed of. He relied on the judgment of this Court in S. RAMESH v. Dr. MOHAMMED IMAM HANNORAI[1] wherein it was held as under: “An act of Court normally should not result in inconvenience to the parties or put the parties into trouble. It is true that when there is conflict between the Law and equity, Law may have to prevail. It is pertinent to note that always a distinction to be drawn between an irregularity and illegality. Here is a typical case where the parties who invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judge by moving a Transfer O.P. and got an order of transfer, now are contending otherwise on the ground that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the original suit. It is pertinent to note that the original suit also is concerned with recovery of arrears of rent which is incidentally the subject matter of the ground of willful default in the Rent Control proceedings. There is no doubt no controversy that Section 24 of the Code deals with Transfer of suits in civil proceedings and for transfer of Rent Control proceedings, the Rules under the Act specify the procedure specifying the authority as well before whom such transfers are to be moved. Here is a case where the learned Rent Controller, may be a persona designata under the Act, was dealing with the Rent Control matter who is also the learned Junior Civil Judge who is otherwise competent to decide a civil suit as well. It is not as though the Rent Control proceeding was decided by an ordinary Civil Court which is not conferred with the powers of being a persona designata under the Act. The position appears to be converse in the matter. The Rent Controller who is also the Junior Civil Judge and who is competent to try both Rent Control proceedings and also the original suit, had tried, and may be, the joint trial at the best may be an irregularity. But, this was done in pursuance of an order which the petitioners/tenants themselves had invited by invoking the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, by moving the Transfer O.P. In such a case, such parties, the petitioners/tenants, cannot be permitted to contend otherwise and hence this Court is not inclined to agree with the findings which had been recorded by the appellate Court while making the order of remand. It is true that this Court dealing with a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, at the best can set aside the order of remand and again remit the matter back to the appellate Court to decide the matter in accordance with law”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in KOYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO v. PATCHAVA ANASUYA[2] wherein it was held as under: Stay of present suit-When parties and subject matter of property are same in the present suit and previously instituted suit on which an appeal is pending, application for stay of present suit can be allowed under Section 10 CPC even if both the suits were instituted based on different documents and causes of action are different.” 5. A perusal of the record discloses that several suits are pending between the parties in respect of the suit schedule property. The relief sought for in the present petition is for stay of the proceedings in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007. Admittedly, the proceedings in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 are not independent and the same was clubbed with O.S.No.2695 of 2006. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner is not maintainable. Apart from that, the petitioner obtained ex parte injunction against the respondents in O.S.No.2695 of 2006. At this stage of the proceedings, the relief of stay of the proceedings in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 alone cannot be granted. But, however, in view of the nature of the proceedings and the issues involved in all these matters, the petitioner instead of filing the present petition he can as well avail remedies that are available under law to get all the matters being tried by one and the same Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:01.10.2010 sj [1] 2007(5) ALT 10 [2] 2009(5) ALT 718