THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.544 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.19 of 2009 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for declaration, to the effect that the decree obtained by the 1st respondent in O.S.No.76 of 2008, on the file of the same Court, on 14-08-2008 against the 2nd respondent is null and void, and for consequential reliefs. He pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased by him from the 2nd respondent for valuable consideration, on 15-07-2002 through a registered sale deed, and thereafter, the 1st respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent, instituted O.S.No.76 of 2008 and obtained a decree for specific performance, on the strength of an alleged agreement of sale dated 18-05-2002. The 1st respondent has also filed I.A.No.94 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the decree in O.S.No.76 of 2008. The application was opposed, mainly by the petitioner herein. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 21-10-2009. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent. Thereby, the 1st respondent became the absolute owner. The sale in favour of the 1st respondent took place, much before O.S.No.76 of 2008 was filed. The 2nd respondent ought to have brought to the notice of the trial Court, the factum of the sale in favour of the petitioner. On account of non-disclosure of that fact, the trial Court decreed the suit. The petitioner came to know about these developments only after that suit was decreed. He has availed the only relief of filing of another suit, to declare the decree in O.S.No.76 of 2008 as null and void and suffers with the vice of collusion. He could not have preferred an appeal, since he was not a party to that suit. Once the very decree in O.S.No.76 of 2008 is the subject- matter of the present suit, it is but natural that the further proceedings, in pursuance of the decree, must be stayed. In the absence of such a stay, the very purpose of filing the suit, subsequently, would be defeated. The trial Court has considered the matter from the correct perspective and no error of jurisdiction is pointed out. The C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-12-2010. KO