Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 446 (AP)

Noor Ahmed v. Mazharul Qamar

2013-06-18

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Of late, instances of impatience on the part of some of the Presiding Officers of the Civil Courts, are increasing. They are making efforts some how or the other, to get rid of the suits without taking the trouble of deciding them on merits. The present case provides an example. 2. The petitioners filed O.S. No.349 of 2006 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.7 to 11 filed I.A. No.1982 of 2009 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) with a prayer to stay the further proceedings in the suit. According to them, O.S. No.248 of 2006 is pending in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of partition, and that, the subsequent suit filed by the petitioners herein, needs to be stayed. The learned Judge, however, dismissed the suit itself, through order dated 16-09-2010 passed in the interlocutory application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation for the respondents. 4. It is un-understandable as to how a suit can be dismissed even if what is pleaded in the application filed under Section 10 of CPC is true and correct. The provision does not bar a subsequent suit. What all Section 10 CPC mandates is that, in case, any dispute in the subject matter of a suit, which is already pending, a suit filed thereafter in relation to the same dispute, in a different or same Court, must be stayed. By no stretch of imagination, allowing an application filed under Section 10 of CPC would result in dismissal of the suit. Unfortunately, that is the understanding of the learned Presiding Officer, who dealt with the application. He travelled beyond the scope of the application. There was not even a prayer by the respondents for dismissal of the suit. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that by the time the order under revision was passed, the suit progressed to a substantial extent and not only the pleadings were completed but evidence was also recorded. 5. There was not even a prayer by the respondents for dismissal of the suit. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that by the time the order under revision was passed, the suit progressed to a substantial extent and not only the pleadings were completed but evidence was also recorded. 5. The trial Court has to examine the interlocutory application afresh, compare the array of parties and the nature of relief claimed in both the suits. If it is found that there is any overlapping of the reliefs and the parties are common, it shall stay the suit till disposal of the earlier suit. If it is found that there is no similarity, it shall proceed to dispose of the suit. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court shall dispose of I.A. No.1982 of 2009 afresh. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.