THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3380 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16.07.2009, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing the application I.A.No.485 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.42 of 2008, filed under Order-41 Rule-5 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to grant stay of the proceedings in O.S.No.859 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 3. Petitioner is the defendant and respondent-Jagbabu Samatha Cultural Association is the plaintiff in the suit. 4. The respondent herein filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-the petitioner herein, his men and henchmen from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Along with the suit, an interlocutory application I.A.No.26 of 2008 is also filed, seeking temporary injunction. 5. The trial Court, having gone into the merits of the case, granted temporary injunction in the said interlocutory application. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A.No.42 of 2008 along with an interlocutory application I.A.No.485 of 2009, seeking stay of the proceedings in O.S.No.859 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and the lower appellate Court had confirmed the said interlocutory order, passed by the trial Court, granting temporary injunction. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. From the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side, the undisputed facts, in brief, are as follows: Originally, the suit O.S.No.776 of 1985 was filed by one Veeraiah, Son of Venkaiah, (predecessor in title of the respondent herein), seeking permanent injunction and the same was decreed. In appeal A.S.No.139 of 1990, the lower appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court. Hence, Second Appeal No.375 of 2001 has been preferred before this Court and the same is pending. It is to be noticed that, in the said Second Appeal., this Court had passed orders of status-quo, which are subsisting as of now. 7. Be that as it may, the said Veeraiah-the predecessor in title of the respondent herein also filed another suit O.S.No.44 of 1991, seeking declaration of title in respect of the entire property and mandatory injunction to remove the remnants of collapsed school. The said suit was decreed. In appeal A.S.No.156 of 1997, the decree passed by the trial Court had been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. It appears, some applications have been filed by the petitioner herein before the trial Court seeking to set aside the default orders and the same are still pending. But, no proof is coming forth in that regard. However, the fact remains that the judgment and decree, in O.S.No.44 of 1991, passed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.156 of 1997, are very much in force and remain as final as of date. 8. What is to be noticed in this regard is that the earlier suit-O.S.No.776 of 1985 was filed for mere injunction, as such, neither the title of the parties was in question nor the same was a substantial issue before the trial Court. Therefore, there was no occasion for the trial Court or for the lower appellate Court for that matter to record any findings as regards the title of the parties to the lis at that point of time. Now, the respondent herein had got the interest over a part of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.44 of 1991 from the said Veeraiah, in whose favour the suit O.S.No.44 of 1991 was decreed and was further confirmed in appeal. 9. The law is settled that the losing party in a suit for injunction, notwithstanding a finding recorded against him, is always at liberty to file a comprehensive suit for declaration at a later point of time, and, such a suit would not be hit by the principle of res judicata. 10. In the present case, as already pointed out, the later suit-O.S.No.44 of 1991, which was filed for declaration of title over the entire extent of the suit schedule property and mandatory injunction over a part thereof, was decreed, and the appeal A.S.No.156 of 1997 filed, challenging it, was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 1991 had become final. 11. Even if any application is, allegedly, filed seeking to set aside the ex parte order in A.S.No.156 of 1997, and is pending, since no orders have been passed thereon, it shall be deemed that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 1991 had attained the finality. 12. All the questions, including the title over the suit schedule property, have been decided in the subsequent suit O.S.No.44 of 1991, filed at the instance of the predecessor in title of the respondent herein. Even though there is an interim order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.375 of 2001, which arose out of O.S.No.776 of 1985, filed seeking permanent injunction, to the effect that the parties shall maintain status-quo, I am of the considered view that the said order cannot have an overriding effect over the judgment rendered by the trial Court decreeing the comprehensive suit O.S.No.44 of 1991, filed for declaration of title and mandatory injunction, as was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.156 of 1997, and thereby, attaining finality. The only course open to the parties is to bring these facts to the notice of this Court in S.A.No.375 of 2001, which is pending before this Court, in an appropriate manner. 13. Even though the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.26 of 2008 in O.S.No.859 of 2008 is very elaborate, to some extent, the trial court went into the merits of the case, however, finally I could see that reliance was placed on the judgment rendered in O.S.No.44 of 1991, as was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.156 of 1997. So, as long as the judgment and decree passed in O.S.44 of 1991 are allowed to become final, the present order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.26 of 2008, as was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in I.A.No.485 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.42 of 2008, cannot be faulted with. The other aspects that have been discussed and the observations and findings, as the case may be, recorded by the trial Court in I.A.No.26 of 2008 in O.S.No.859 of 2008 are always subject to the outcome of the suit. In other words, those observations and findings, except the fact of touching the filing of O.S.No.44 of 1991 and the decree passed therein, having attained finality, cannot be allowed to influence the trial Court, while trying and disposing the suit O.S.No.859 of 2008 on its file. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. However, the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, is directed to dispose of the suit O.S.No.859 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any of the observations or remarks made in the impugned order, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.485 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.42 of 2008, or by this Court in this order. 16. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA​ 19th March 2010 dr