Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 515 (TS)

K. Parijathamma v. B. Suresh Singh

2023-07-18

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2023
ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the order dated 15.12.2022 in I.A.No.57 of 2021 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the lower Court. 4. The defendant filed I.A.No.57 of 2021, under Section 10 C.P.C., to grant stay of the suit proceedings in O.S.No.2 of 2019 till the disposal of the previously instituted suit that is O.S.No.165 of 2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Kollapur. 5. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit against her for Specific Performance of the Suit Agreement of Sale. Kannareddy Vijender Reddy, the brother of the petitioner had already filed O.S.No.165 of 2018, for partition of family properties including the suit schedule property and the suit is now pending. In O.S.No.165 of 2018 the issue that has to be decided is whether the property involved in the present suit is joint family property or not and so till the disposal of the previously instituted suit O.S.No.165 of 2018, the proceedings in the present suit has to be stayed hence the petition. 6. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter vehemently opposing grant of stay of suit proceedings till the disposal of O.S.No.165 of 2018. He alleged that O.S.No.165 of 2018 is filed not by Kannareddy Vijender Reddy, brother of the husband of the petitioner/defendant as per the suit register of the Junior Civil Judge at Kollapur, O.S.No.165 of 2018 is filed by one Valipu Uma Devi against Smt.Pabba Sunitha. He further alleged that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present CRP because the aggrieved party is the said Kannareddy Vijender Reddy but not the petitioner, for the reason that the petitioner is not at all party to O.S.No.165 of 2018. 7. Similarly the said Kannareddy Vijender Reddy, is not party to the present suit. The parties in the previously instituted suit and the present suit are not one and the same. Added to that, the issue in the former suit relates to partition whereas in the present suit it is in respect of Specific Performance of Contract. 8. 7. Similarly the said Kannareddy Vijender Reddy, is not party to the present suit. The parties in the previously instituted suit and the present suit are not one and the same. Added to that, the issue in the former suit relates to partition whereas in the present suit it is in respect of Specific Performance of Contract. 8. The subject matter in both the suits is not one and the same. Moreover, the cause of action in the former suit is different from cause of action in the present suit. 9. For application of Section 10 CPC the important requirement is that the matter in issue in the present suit should be directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit between the same parties. 10. The perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.165 of 2018 shows that the suit is filed for partition by Kannareddy Vijender Reddy against his father and brothers. But the present suit is filed by the respondents against the wife of K.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, who is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.165 of 2018, for Specific Performance of Contract. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for in both the suits, it cannot at all be said that the issue in the present suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit. Moreover, the respondent/plaintiff is not party to the previously instituted suit and so it cannot be said that the parties in both the suits are same. 11. Under these circumstances, Section 10 CPC cannot be invoked for granting stay of the present suit proceedings. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 in I.A.No.57 of 2021 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy, shows that the Court did not commit any impropriety or illegality in passing the order and so this Court does not find any merit in the present Civil Revision Petition, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.