IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5906 of 2010 Between: A. Venkateshwar Reddy .. Revision Petitioner AND Sri Venkateshwara Rice Mill & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5906 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the dismissal of I.A.No.558 of 2010 in O.S.No.34 of 2009, by an order, dated 29.10.2010, by the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2. The petition was filed by the first defendant for stay of further proceedings in the suit under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’), till the disposal of W.A.No.612 of 2009. The first defendant claimed that the suit was filed for recovery of damages in pursuance of the order in W.P.No.20487 of 2001. In W.A.M.P.No.1224 of 2009 in W.A.No.612 of 2009 against the said order, the High Court restrained the plaintiff from taking any coercive steps. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 did not file any counter affidavit or oppose the request, but the trial Court noted that in W.P.No.20487 of 2001, the High Court observed that the third respondent shall be under an obligation to pay damages to the petitioner for use and occupation of the property which shall be assessed if a suit were to be filed for the purpose. It was on that basis that the suit was filed while a writ appeal is pending against the judgment in the writ petition. The trial Court referred to KARRI SATYANARAYNA AND OTHERS VS. PICHIKA VEERRAJU AND OTHERS[1] about the scope of Section 10 C.P.C and as the plaintiff was not debarred from filing the suit for recovery of damages or proceeding with the same by the interim orders in the writ appeal, the suit has to be decided on its own merits. While agreeing that the suit automatically goes, if the writ appeal is allowed, the trial Court felt that as there was no prior suit decided finally, the petition is not maintainable. 3. The first defendant challenged the said order in this revision contending that the subsequently initiated proceedings ought to have been stayed to do substantial justice in the interests of justice. Section 151 C.P.C ought to have been applied, more so, when the other side has no counter affidavit and as the suit is the outcome of the order in the writ petition, the result of the writ appeal ought to have been awaited. 4. Heard Sri J. Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though the first respondent was served with notice, none appeared on his behalf and respondents 2 and 3 were stated to be not necessary parties to this petition. 5. Sri J. Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, referred to the relevant precedents and desired the impugned order to be reversed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioner is justified in seeking a stay of further proceedings in the suit. 7. In KARRI SATYANARAYNA’s case (supra 1), cited before the trial Court also, the learned Judge (as His Lordship then was) considered Section 151 C.P.C to be applicable even where Section 10 of the said code may not be applicable. The power of the High Court to interfere in exercise of its inherent powers to stay the trial in an independent suit in the course of other proceedings pending before it in the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court when the applicant has no other remedy was recognized. The question primarily was considered to be the identity of the matter in issue between both the proceedings. Similarly, in BHASKAR REDDY VS. DHARAMKARAN REDDY & OTHERS[2], His Lordship (as His Lordship then was) was considering a situation where Section 10 C.P.C in terms, does not apply, as the matter related to a suit for declaration of title and possession and parallel proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The learned Judge held that the same does not and shall not deter the Court from passing an appropriate order including the stay of the suit if it were in the interests of justice and the said conclusion was in obvious reference to the inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. Similar was the decision reported in D. PULLA REDDY VS. ANANTHA REDDY AND OTHERS[3] and in APPANI RAMACHANDRAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHERUKU VIJAYALAXMI[4], His Lordship was considering a similar question as herein about stay of a suit pending a writ petition. It was on facts that the learned Judge concluded that the suit for perpetual injunction simpliciter need not be stayed pending the writ petition, considering the orders made by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The observation of the learned Judge that the suit “need” not be stayed under Section 151 C.P.C by necessary implication recognizes the power of the Court to grant such a stay if such a need arises. 8. In the present case, the very basis for the suit claim was the decision on merits in W.P.No.20487 of 2001 by this Court. But for the directions in the writ petition permitting the filing of a suit for assessment of damages for use and occupation of the property within six months from the disposal of the writ petition, the suit itself could not have had its birth before the trial Court. When the decision in the writ petition is subject of the writ appeal, the trial Court itself noted that the suit will automatically go, if the writ appeal were to be allowed. Then, it is but, in the interests of justice to await the result of the writ appeal before proceeding further with the suit to avoid any further complications and irretrievable prejudice to either party. No irreparable injury or inconvenience is caused to either party by the stay of the suit pending the writ appeal and obviously, the other parties have no serious objection for such a course of action as evidenced by their not filing any counter affidavits to the petition in question. Though the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 were represented by their counsel during hearing of the petition before the trial Court, they did not appear to have raised any objection against the request. The interests of justice will be best served under such circumstances by considering the request and the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in this regard as called for by the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Therefore, the order, dated 29.10.2010, in I.A.No.558 of 2010 in O.S.No.34 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, is set aside and the said I.A.No.558 of 2010 is allowed granting stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.34 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, till the disposal of W.A.No.612 of 2009, on the file of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27th July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5906 of 2010 Date: 27th July, 2011 KL [1] 1996 (1) ALT 177 [2] 1969 ANDHRA PRADESH LAW JOURNAL 102 (SHORT NOTES) [3] 1970 ANDHRA PRADESH LAW JOURNAL 88 (SHORT NOTES) [4] 2006 (3) ALD 251