THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.381 of 2011 Dated 06th June, 2011 Between: Nakka Krishna Veni and another …Petitioners And Nakka Pardhasaradhi …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Veera Reddy Counsel for respondent: Smt.G.Jhansi The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 14.12.2010, in I.A.No.380 of 2007, in O.S.No.508 of 2001, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.508 of 2001 and respondents in I.A.No.380 of 2007. The respondent herein, who is the defendant in the suit, filed I.A.No.380 of 2007 seeking stay of the suit filed by the petitioners. The only ground, on which, the stay was sought for, was that in an earlier suit, namely, O.S.No.79 of 1995, filed by petitioner No.1 i.e., plaintiff No.1, seeking eviction of the respondent-defendant from a particular item of property, the validity of the Will, dated 09.12.1981, fell for consideration and that the judgment and decree in the said suit was questioned by the respondent-defendant in A.S.No.760 of 1999, which is pending before this Court. The Court below accepted the plea of the respondent and stayed the suit on the ground that the issue pertaining to the validity of the Will propounded by petitioner No.1 (plaintiff No.1) is the subject matter of an appeal pending before this Court. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the reasoning of the Court below is not sound in law because the properties, which are subject matter of the present suit, are different from the properties covered by the previous suit and that even if the same issue, which was raised in the present suit relating to the validity of the Will, was raised and decided in the previous suit, the same does not preclude the Court below from adjudicating the present suit. Smt.G.Jhansi, learned counsel for the respondent, has resisted the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and sought to support the order passed by the Court below. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the properties covered by the present suit are different and distinct from that covered by the previous suit i.e., O.S.No.79 of 1995. The mere fact that the validity of the Will, dated 09.12.1981, was subject matter of the previous suit and a finding was rendered thereon by the Court below cannot be a ground for staying the present suit. The present suit needs to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence available on record. The Court below needs to consider the effect of the previous judgment between the parties concerned in the light of the existing law and adjudicate the suit. Neither any legal provision nor any principle of law has been referred to by the Court below in concluding that till the appeal pending before this Court arising out of O.S.No.79 of 1995 is disposed of, the present suit cannot be proceeded with. In the absence of any legal bar, the Court below is not precluded from proceeding with and adjudicating the present suit despite the fact that one of the issues arising in the present suit was the subject matter of a previous suit and the pending appeal before this Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. The Court below is directed to proceed with and adjudicate the suit in accordance with law. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th June, 2011 VGB