IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.2698 OF 2010 Date:17.03.2011 Between:- Kodamanchili Vdaya Venkatachalam ..Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant No.2 And Kodamanchili Simhachalam and others .. Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiff & Defendant Nos.1 and 3 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 07.12.2009, in I.A.No.322 of 2009 in O.S.No.1366 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, petition filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) to grant stay of the proceedings in O.S.No.1366 of 2007 on the ground that O.S.No.1067 of 2007 is pending, was dismissed, as the earlier suit is against defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the present suit is against defendant Nos.1, 2 and Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as defendant No.3 and also as no material was available to find out the need for staying the suit. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The underlying object of the rule contained in Section 10 C.P.C. is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject-matter and the same relief. 4. It is not in dispute before this Court that O.S.No.1067 of 2007 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, is filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against petitioner and respondent No.2/defendant Nos.2 and 1, which is an injunction simplicitor in respect of a house property bearing No.28-18-18/1 to an extent of 40 sq.yards in T.S.No.1451. Similarly, the plaintiff also filed O.S.No.1366 of 2007 duly impleading defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the previous suit and also the Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, as defendant No.3. In this suit, no relief of whatsoever is claimed against defendant Nos.1 and 2. If such is the case, the issues in both the suits between the same parties is not one and the same. In a suit for injunction simplicitor, the issue is whether the defendants are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. When no such relief is asked for against defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the present suit, the question of staying the proceedings in O.S.No.1366 of 2007 does not arise. The trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.2698 OF 2010 Date:17.03.2011 AMD