THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3121 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order dated 27.04.2009 in I.A.No.74 of 2008 in O.S.No.203 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri. Petitioners/plaintiffs laid the suit in O.S.No.203 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri, seeking permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants from interfering into their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It was the case of the petitioners before the trial Court that one A.Kotaiah was the original owner of the schedule property and he sold the same to their predecessors-in-title and put them in possession of the same. It was their further case that their predecessors-in-title and, thereafter, they, being the legal heirs of their predecessors-in-title, have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and perfected their title, but however, the said Kotaiah again sold the schedule property to the first respondent herein viz., R.Subrahmanyam, under a registered sale deed dated 20.10.1983, and, as such, they filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Venkatagiri, against the 1st respondent herein, as the 1st defendant, and the said A.Kotaiah, as the 2nd defendant, for declaration that the said sale deed dated 20.10.1983 is illegal and void, and the same was decreed, but on appeal in A.S.No.16 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudur, the appellate Court reversed the same and, thereupon, they preferred Second Appeal No.1337 of 2008 on the file of this Court and the same is pending. Further, it was their case that the said Subrahmanyam, in whose favour the original owner again sold the schedule property under the sale deed dated 20.10.1983, subsequently sold the scheduled property to one Janapati Rajendra Prasad, the 2nd respondent herein, who thereafter started interfering with their possession and enjoyment and, hence, they laid the present suit O.S.No.203 of 2003 against Subrahmanyam and Rajendra Prasad, as defendants 1 and 2. During pendency of the present suit, the plaintiffs filed the present I.A.No.74 of 2008 seeking stay of all further proceedings in the suit till disposal of Second Appeal No.1337 of 2003 on the file of this Court. The trial Court, having found no convincing reasons assigned regarding the stay of further proceedings in the suit O.S.No.203 of 2003, dismissed the present I.A. by the docket order dated 27.04.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary and illegal and does not sustain scrutiny of law. He submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C., the present suit cannot be proceeded further until and unless the Second Appeal No.1337 of 2003 is disposed of, as the schedule property in the present suit i.e., O.S.No.203 of 2003 and the earlier suit in O.S.No.59 of 1984, over which the Second Appeal No.1337 of 2003 is pending, are one and the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, relied upon a judgment in Penukonda Padmanabham Chetty v. Moya Ramaswamy. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the parties to the suit in O.S.No.203 of 2003 and the earlier suit in O.S.No.59 of 1984 are not one and the same. The original owner of the schedule property is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.59 of 1984, whereas the alleged purchaser of the schedule property from the 1st respondent herein is the 2nd defendant in the present suit O.S.No.203 of 2003. He further submits that the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C. are not attracted to the facts of the present case. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. A perusal of section 10 of Civil Procedure Code reads as under:- “No Court shall proceed 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, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in [India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of [India] established or continued by [the Central Government] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court]”. The relevant portion of the judgment in Padmanabham’s case (referred supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, reads as follows:- “The previously instituted suit as contemplated by Section 10 need not be necessarily be between the same parties. It can also be between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title. It is not disputed that the second defendant is litigating under the same title as the first defendant.” In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the second respondent is litigating under the same title as that of the petitioners and that they both claim title to the same person i.e., Subrahmanyam, the first respondent herein, further traceable to Kotaiah, the original owner. Therefore, in view of the provision of Section 10 of C.P.C. and the judgment referred supra and also the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be countenanced and, therefore, the impugned docket order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned docket order dated 27.04.2009 in I.A.No.74 of 2009 in O.S.No.203 of 2003 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 05.12.2009 v v