THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No.3887 of 2011 Dated : 14-09-2011 Between : Janapareddy Suryanarayana, S/o. Appalanaidu, Hindu, aged : 53 years, Cultivation, R/o.Pedapadu, Atchutapuram Mandal. …Petitioner/Petitioner AND Janapareddy Jaggarao, S/o.Ramulu, Hindu Aged about 75 years, Cultivation, R/o Khajeepalem, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakha District and 6 others. …Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No.3887 of 2011 JUDGMENT : This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against a docket order dated 03-08-2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 and 151 of CPC to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.15 of 2006 till the disposal of O.S.No.214 of 2002. In rejecting this application viz., I.A. No.1324 of 2008 in O.S. No.15 of 2006, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, has recorded that from a perusal of the records it is clear that the reliefs sought and the cause of action in O.S.No.15 of 2006 and O.S.No.214 of 2002 are entirely distinct and no case is made out for stay of proceedings in O.S.No.15 of 2006. O.S.No.15 of 2006 is filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner and six others for the relief and damages from the first defendant (revision petitioner herein) towards the value of the sugarcane allegedly taken away by the revision petitioner from the plaint schedule property with the help of the defendant Nos.2 to 7; for subsequent interest; and incidental reliefs. According to the plaintiff [R1 herein], he filed O.S.No.104 of 1994 before the same court against one Mandarapu Annapoorna, W/o. Brahmanandam for recovery of amounts due under a pronote. That suit was decreed and the plaint schedule property brought to sale by auction in execution of the decree in O.S.No.104 of 1994, in E.P.No.127 of 1994. The first respondent herein participated in the auction; succeeded therein and a sale certificate was issued to him and the property handed over to his possession by the court. On 08-08-2002 it is alleged that while he was plowing the schedule property, the second respondent’s husband Sambasivarao and defendant Nos.3 to 6 obstructed him and threatened to dispossess him. Thereupon, he filed O.S.No.214 of 2002 for permanent injunction against Sambasivarao and 5 others; and in I.A.No.706 of 2002 therein sought temporary injunction against the defendants in O.S.No.214 of 2002 which was granted and the suit is pending trial. Further, according to the first respondent herein, after the death of Sambasivarao, the defendant Nos.2 to 7 illegally fabricated a registered document dated 22-11-2004 conveying the plaint schedule property to the first defendant (revision petitioner). It is asserted that the sale deed is sham, nominal and collusive and is not valid in law. The plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 2006 further pleaded that the sugarcane crop was raised by him and on 03-04-2005 the first defendant (revision petitioner herein) illegally carried away sugarcane crop with the support of defendant Nos.2 to 7. Hence, the relief sought in O.S.No.15 of 2006. In the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the first respondent herein has filed O.S.No.15 of 2006 for damages against the revision petitioner for illegally taking away the sugarcane crop from the plaint schedule property which is claimed as belonging to him. O.S.No.214 of 2002 is an earlier suit filed by the same plaintiff seeking injunction against Sambasivarao and 5 others in this suit. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of Sambasivarao. From the chronology of facts on record no case is made out for stay of O.S.No.15 of 2006 till the disposal of O.S.No.214 of 2002. This is what the court below found rightly. This revision is thus misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM September 14, 2011 Ndr/* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No.3887 of 2011 Date : September 14, 2011 Ndr/*