IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 103 of 2010(E) -------------------------------- [IA.NO.1825/2009 IN OS.NO.213/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR] .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------- VASUDEVAN, S/O NARAYANAN, AGED 61 YEARS, ANJANAMCHIRAKALAM, MUTHALAMADA, ANAMARI, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAN, S/O PAZHANIMALA, AGED 45 YEARS, KANNATHKADU HOUSE, MANAPPADAM, PUTHUCODE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- CRP No.103 of 2010-E ------------------------------------- Dated 26th March 2010 Order In this Revision Petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 05.12.2009 in IA No.1825/09 in OS No.213/08. 2. The defendant filed IA No.1825/09 under S.10 CPC to stay the suit till the disposal of RFA No.35/09, pending before this Court. There are three suits pending between the parties. The petitioner herein along with the legal heirs of the predecessor in interest of the respondent herein are the 8th and 18th to 22nd defendants respectively in OS Nos.223/1977, 220/1978 and 224/1987 of Sub Court, Palakkad. All the above three suits were tried together by the Sub Court, Palakkad and a preliminary decree was passed on 31.07.2008. It was pointed out that the plaint schedule property in OS No.213/08 is the 13th item in the plaint schedule of OS No.220/1978 which is pending consideration before this Court in RFA No.35/09. CRP 103/10 2 Therefore, it was prayed that OS No.213/08 be stayed till the disposal of the said RFA as the parties and the dispute are one and the same. 3. The respondent before the Court below opposed the application, pointing out that the plaint schedule property is not taken in by the suit before the Sub Court, Palakkad. The Court below found that purchase certificate was obtained in respect of the property as per SM No.30/75 of the Land Tribunal, Alathur. It was therefore, pointed out that there was no occasion for the petitioner to include the same property in the partition suit. It was also observed that such a case was not put forward by the petitioner either in the written statement or in the counter to the temporary injunction application. It was also observed that it was only an attempt of the petitioner to drag the proceedings. 4. The Court below considered the rival contentions and came to a tentative conclusion that the 13th item of the plaint schedule property in OS No.220/78 is not CRP 103/10 3 the property involved in the present suit. It was also observed that there were differences in name, survey number, extent and boundaries relating to both properties and there is no indication to hold that the properties were one and the same. It was further held that such a decree in the former suit will not operate as a res judicata in the present sit as the subject matter in issue in the present suit is not directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit. The said order passed by the Court below is assailed in this Petition. It is submitted that some of the statements in the order of the lower court are not correct and the proposals are identical. 5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the statements in the impugned order, his remedy is to seek review of the order, pointing out the above anomaly. Leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to move an RP, this Petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRP 103/10 4 CRP 103/10 5