HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No. 4728 of 2009 O R D E R: This Revision is directed against the order, dated 07.09.2009 passed in I.A. No. 430 of 2009 in O.S. No. 89 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the Application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking stay of the proceedings in O.S. No. 89 of 2007 pending disposal of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the Revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent filed the suit basing on the proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue officer, Kattangur and the said proceedings are under challenge before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the proceedings in O.S.No. 89 of 2007 are required to be stayed, pending the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The same point has been urged by the petitioners herein before the trial Court. The trial Court, on considering Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, recorded a finding that the proceedings pending before the Appellate Authority in the Revenue Department cannot be a ground to stay the proceedings in O.S.No. 89 of 2007. The relevant portion of the order passed by the trial Court reads as hereunder: “ Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2007 and it is identified matter and it is coming for trial and at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1, this petition is filed to stay the suit, stating that against the orders of M.R.O., Kattangur, aggrieved by it that the petitioners have preferred appeal before R.D.O., Nalgonda. The plaintiff herein i.e. respondent has filed the suit basing on the proceedings issued by M.R.O., Kattangur in B/1349/07 against the said order that the appeal is preferred by the petitioners, however, it is learnt that so far the petitioners have not tried to get dispose off the said appeal before R.D.O. since 2007 and this Court cannot wait till the orders of the R.D.O. are received, though the petitioners states that basing on the proceedings of the M.R.O., Kattangur, this suit is filed by the plaintiff, the respondent herein. Since the suit is for permanent injunction, the possession has to be proved by the concerned parties, the real facts would come to the light at the time of the trial, there is every possibility that even against the orders of R.D.O. may go to higher authorities, as such, this Court cannot stay the suit till disposal of their grievances before the revenue authorities. In the light of the above discussion and facts and circumstances material available on record, I am not inclined to allow the petition.” Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the stay of suits, which reads as hereunder: “ 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.” A plain reading of the above referred Section indicates that two suits must be pending in Court i.e. earlier suit and subsequent suit and the two suits must be between the same parties or between the parties litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant relief claimed or in any other Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court. The relief sought for in O.S. No. 89 of 2007 is injunction against the petitioners, whereas the proceedings before the revenue authorities are in respect of some entries in the revenue records. Therefore, the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the given facts and circumstances, cannot be pressed into service. The trial Court considered the provisions of Section 10 in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the Application filed by the petitioners. I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the Revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ------------------------------------ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 12th October 2009 ksld