HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1974 OF 2011 . DATED 22ND JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN Smt. Adapa Lakshmi Ramamani …Petitioner And Kedasu Somaraju and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1974 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2011 whereunder and whereby the learned VI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsapur, West Godavari District, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/fourth defendant in I.A.No.96 of 2010 in O.S.No. 39 of 2005 under Section s 10 and 151 CPC seeking stay of all further proceedings in the suit, viz., OS.No. 39 of 2005 till the disposal of the appeal in AS.No. 3555 of 2004 pending on the file of this Court. The first respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 39 of 2005 for partition of the plaint items 1 to 17 of ‘A’ schedule and ‘B’ schedule properties into 9 equal shares and for allotment of one such share and to deliver possession of the same to him. Earlier thereto, the petitioner/fourth defendant filed suit in O.S.No. 94 of 1994 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur for declaration of her title to the plaint ‘C’ schedule property and consequential delivery of possession of the same after evicting second respondent/first defendant, to pass necessary preliminary and final decree for partition of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into two equal shares and allotting one such share to her and delivery possession of the same after evicting the second respondent/first defendant etc. The said suit was decreed as prayed for. Against the decree and judgment in OS.No. 94 of 1994, the second respondent herein preferred appeal in AS.No. 3555 of 2004 on the file of this Court and the same is pending consideration. The first and third respondents herein are the sons of second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner/fourth defendant that the issues that arise for consideration in OS.No. 39 of 2005 are substantially and directly the same in the previously instituted suit in OS.No. 94 of 1994. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Court below was not right in dismissing the application filed under Section 10 CPC. Perused the case file and grounds raised in the memorandum of the petition. It is settled principle of law that the provisions of Section 10 CPC are applicable only when the issues, directly or substantially in both the suits, are one and the same. In the orders under revision the learned trial Judge has pointed out that "the matter in issue" in the present suit pending on the file of the Courts below is not directly and substantially in issue in O.S.No.94 of 1994 now seized of by this Court in A.S. No. 3555 of 2004. The reasons given by the learned trial Judge to record such finding, in my considered opinion, are well founded. There is no doubt that certain common issues do arise in both the suits, but, for the purpose of applying Section 10 CPC, there must be identity of subject matter and mere fact that one of the questions in issue is the same as in the other suit would not make the subject matter identical. Further more, the Court below held that a specific issue ‘whether the Decree and judgment in OS.No. 94 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narsapur, operates as res judicata in the suit’ was framed in OS.No. 39 of 2005. The ratio laid down in the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not directly apply to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, there is no issue directly or substantially same in both the suits. I, therefore, do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22ND June, 2011. Msnro