HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4326 OF 2009. DATED 1ST DECEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN K.V.Raghavulu (died) and ors. …..Petitioners and Gandrothu Satyanarayana … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4326 OF 2009. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13.7.2009 passed in I.A.No. 395 of 2009 in O.S.No. 49 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavolu, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge, dismissed the application ﬁled under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to stay all further proceedings in the suit, pending disposal of A.S.No. 4 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The background facts in a nutshell leading to ﬁling of the Civil Revision Petition by the defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2008 in brief are: one Kopalli Vira Raghavulu and Kopalli Ramalinga Swamy ﬁled O.S.No. 712 of 2001 against Gandrothu Satyanarayana seeking right of passage over the land owned by him. The relief sought for in the plaint read as follows: “Therefore, the plaintiﬀ prays that the honourable Court will be pleased to: a) pass a decree declaring the right of way of the plaintiﬀs along ‘A B C D’ of the plaint plan at a width of 1 ½ yards from the road into the site of second plaintiﬀ; or b) alternatively to provide the old way along ‘E F K K3 B1 B’ if the defendant resails for ‘A B C D’ way got arranged by him; c) to grant consequential permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from making threats and causing obstruction for the free enjoyment of the way right in ‘ A B C D’ or ‘E F K K3 B1B’ as per the declaration to be made by the Honourable Court; d) to award costs of the suit; and e) to grant all other reliefs as the Honourable Court may be deemed ﬁt and just in the circumstances of the case. “ The defendant therein ﬁled written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs. It appears Kopalli Vira Raghavulu died pending the suit and his Legal Representatives came on record as plaintiﬀs 3 to 5 in the said suit as per the order dated 5.11.2006 passed in I.A.No. 3077 of 2006. On a full-ﬂedged trial, the said suit ended in dismissal by judgment dated 23.10.2007. Thereupon, the petitioners herein who are plaintiﬀs in O.S.No. 712 of 2001 ﬁled appeal being A.S.No. 4 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007 passed in O.S.No. 712 of 2001. While so, Gandrothu Satyanarayana-respondent herein ﬁled O.S.No. 49 of 2008 against the petitioners herein seeking permanent injunction in respect of 100 square yards of vacant site more fully described in the suit schedule. The reliefs sought for in the plaint read as follows: :The plaintiﬀ therefore prays the Honourable Court to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendants: a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, their representatives, their agents and their successor in interest from interfering with the plaintiﬀ’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner and at say time; b) For costs of his suit; and c) For all such other reliefs which are deemed ﬁt and just in the circumstances of the case” The petitioners herein entered their appearance in the said suit and ﬁled written statement. Issues are also settled and trial has been commenced. Thereupon the petitioners herein who are the defendants in the O.S.No. 49 of 2008 ﬁled I.A.No.395 of 2009 under Section 10 CPC seeking stay of all further proceedings in OS.No. 49 of 2008 pending disposal of AS.No. 4 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The respondent herein ﬁled counter resisting the application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the application by order dated 13.07.2009. Hence this Civil Revision petition. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 16.9.2009. The petitioners are permitted to take out personal notice to the respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due and ﬁle proof of service. A Memo has been ﬁled on 17.9.2009 vide USR No. 1407 of 2009 stating that service is eﬀected on the respondent. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not choose to appear either in person or through his Counsel. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if the suit ﬁled by the respondent is allowed to be proceeded, the rights of the petitioners in AS.No. 4 of 2007 would get eﬀected substantially and therefore all further proceedings in the suit ﬁled by the respondent are required to be stayed pending disposal of AS.No. 4 of 2007.A further submission has been made by the learned Counsel that the relief sought for in O.S.No. 712 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioners and relief sought for in O.S.No. 49 of 2008 ﬁled by the respondent are identical and the parties in both the suit proceedings are one and the same, and, any ﬁnal adjudication in the suit ﬁled by the respondent will eﬀect the result of the appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2007. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Koya Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. PatchavaAnasuya {2009(5) ALD 323} wherein it has been held that causes of action on the strength of which the suits had been instituted are not relevant for considering the application ﬁled under Section 10 of CPC. The respondent herein ﬁled suit being O.S.No. 49 of 2008 in respect of 100 square yards of land more fully described in the suit schedule. The nature of relief sought for in O.S.No. 712 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioners and the relief sought for in O.S.No. 49 of 2008 ﬁled by the respondent are not one and the same. The petitioners herein claimed right of passage over the land owned by the respondent. Therefore, they have to establish their right over the property in the suit ﬁled by them. The declaration of right of passage is the subject matter in O.S.No. 712 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioners whereas grant of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property is the subject matter in O.S.No. 48 of 2008 ﬁled by the respondent. Therefore, there is no similarity of the reliefs sought for in the two suit proceedings. In such a case, Section 10 CPC cannot be made applicable. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision petition. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY DATED 1ST DECEMBER, 2009. Msnr.