THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2607 of 2003 ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.2003 in E.A. No.36 of 2002 in E.P. No.75 of 2001 in O.S. No.1 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, whereunder and whereby the Execution Application filed under Sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for stay of the execution proceedings, was dismissed. 3. Section 10 CPC deals with stay of civil suits. It provides that where a suit is instituted in a court to which the provisions of the code apply, the Court will not proved with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties and that the Court in which previous suit is pending is competent to grant the relief claimed. The basic purpose of this section is to protect a person from multiplicity of proceedings as also to avoid conflict of decisions. 3. Admittedly, the decree in Original Suit No.1 of 1988 has become final. The decree is for delivery of plaint schedule properties. The decree holders also obtained decree in Original Suit No.43 of 1968 on the file of the Sub Court, Amalapuram for delivery of plaint schedule property and for mesne profits. Basing on that decree, decree holders filed I.A. No.1264 of 1997 for ascertainment of mesne profits. The Execution Petition was filed for delivery of schedule property. On the ground that the reliefs claimed in both applications are one and the same, the present application is filed seeking stay of execution proceedings. Though the property in the Execution proceedings as well as the final decree proceedings is the same, still the trial Court observed that the relief sought for in the two petitions is entirely different. The application for passing of final decree is not meant for division of property by metes and bounds, but to only ascertain mesne profits, whereas the Execution Petition is filed for delivery of possession, which is nothing to do with the pendency of the petition for passing the final decree. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 09.12.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2607 of 2003 09.12.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2607 of 2003 09.12.2010 Between: Yantru Lakshmana Swamy …Petitioner And Samudrala Venkata Chakravarthi & others …Respondents