THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.3721 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 28.06.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, dismissing I.A.No.369 of 2010 in F.C.O.P.No.193 of 2009 filed under Section 10 CPC seeking to stay all further proceedings in O.P.No.193 of 2009. 2. The respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.193 of 2009 against the petitioner seeking to declare her as legally wedded wife of late Moyya Raja Rao, the father of the petitioner, and to direct the Registrar, Visakhapatnam to cancel the will, dated 06.09.2003, said to have been executed by late Moyya Raja Rao and for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property. The petitioner filed I.A.No.369 of 2010 seeking stay of all further proceedings in the said O.P. By the order impugned, the trial Court dismissed the same. Hence, the petitioner filed the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below ought to have seen that the petitioner filed R.C.C.No.18 of 2008 before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam, for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property and that the respondent filed the present O.P. with a similar prayer to direct the petitioner for eviction from the petition schedule property and that since the said RCC is pending adjudication, the proceedings in the O.P. may be stayed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. From a perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the petition schedule property was mutated in the name of the petitioner based on the will, dated 06.09.2003, executed by his father late Raja Rao, and as such, he is the owner of the said property. The petitioner states that he let out the premises to the respondent, who is his step mother, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-, and as she failed to pay the rents regularly and causing damage to the premises, he filed R.C.C.No.18 of 2008 for her eviction from the petition schedule property, whereas the respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.193 of 2009 for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Raja Rao and for other consequential reliefs. 6. Section 10 CPC reads as under: “Stay of suit:-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.” In the instant case, both the suits were instituted in different Courts with the different reliefs, but between the same parties. Further, in FCOP, the respondent sought for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Raja Rao and for cancellation of Will and for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property, which is in the nature of a consequential relief, which has to be decided by the trial Court only after trial. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the proceedings in FCOP cannot be stayed. Hence, I do not find any merit in this revision warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:27.08.2010 sj