ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Lis involved in these revisions and the parties are one and the same. Therefore, the same were heard together and decided by way of this common order :- 2. Heard Mr. C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Suyodh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for 1 st respondent. Respondent Nos.2, 4 to 8 are only formal parties. 3. These two revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common order dated 10.09.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 in A.S.No.8 of 2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri. UNDISPUTED FACTS:- 4. 1 st respondent herein has filed a suit vide O.S.No.769 of 2010 against the petitioner herein, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein for perpetual injunction in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.24 guntas in Sy.No.573, Ac.2.16 guntas in Sy.No.574 in total Ac.5.00 guntas situated at Old Alwal Village, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The same was decreed on 31.12.2018 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at L.B.N4agar, Ranga Reddy District. 5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.8 of 2022 challenging the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed two interlocutory applications under Order 41 Rule 33 read with Section 151 of CPC to suspend the operation of said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 and under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 in the said appeal and the said applications were dismissed. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not take any steps challenging the said order and the same attained finality. However, A.S.No.8 of 2022 pending and it is posted to 04.02.2024 for hearing. 6. The petitioner herein /Defendant No.1 did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. However, he has filed a suit vide O.S.No.34 of 2023 seeking declaration that the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 is not binding on him. In the said suit, he has filed I.A.No.238 of 2023 seeking suspension of the operation of said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. Learned Principal District Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District granted interim injunction order dated 24.02.2023. In the said suit, he has filed I.A.No.238 of 2023 seeking suspension of the operation of said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. Learned Principal District Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District granted interim injunction order dated 24.02.2023. Subsequently, the said I.A.No.238 of 2023 was dismissed on 09.10.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein/Defendant No.1 has preferred CMA No.613 of 2023 and the same is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner herein/Defendant No.1 filed two applications vide I.A.No.497 of 2024 under Order 41 Rule 33 read with Section 151 of CPC to suspend the operation of said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 and I.A.No.498 of 2025 under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 in the said appeal and the said applications were dismissed vide common order dated 10.09.2025. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revisions. 7. 1 st respondent/D.Hr. filed E.P.No.249 of 2022 against J.Drs. seeking execution of the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018. It is pending. 8. The petitioner/Defendant No.1 filed the aforesaid I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 contending as follows:- i. 1 st respondent/plaintiff obtained the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 by playing fraud on the Court. ii. 1 st respondent/plaintiff himself in the capacity of the agreement of sale – cum – General Power of Attorney holder, has executed a registered sale deed and thereby alienated an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in favour of Smt. Tadipally Rajani, under registered sale deed bearing document No.3193 of 2009, dated 06.07.2009. iii. Possession has been delivered to the said Tadipally Rajani. iv. The said sale deed was executed before filing O.S.No.769 of 2010. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 cannot be executed. v. Thus, 1 st respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit suppressing the said fact and obtained said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 by playing fraud. vi. 1 st respondent/plaintiff claimed title over the suit schedule property basing on agreement of sale – cum – GPA bearing document No.2781 of 2007 dated 16.06.2007 and recitals of the said document contemplates that respondent No.1/plaintiff claimed title over the suit schedule property basing on ROR proceedings dated 09.01.1996. vi. 1 st respondent/plaintiff claimed title over the suit schedule property basing on agreement of sale – cum – GPA bearing document No.2781 of 2007 dated 16.06.2007 and recitals of the said document contemplates that respondent No.1/plaintiff claimed title over the suit schedule property basing on ROR proceedings dated 09.01.1996. The same were under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.17539 of 2010 wherein, vide order dated 18.11.2013, this Court gave a clear finding that the said proceedings dated 09.01.1996 are not in existence. vii. This Court, vide order dated 28.04.2023, suspended the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff. viii. The extent claimed by the 1 st respondent/plaintiff is contradictory to the agreement of sale – cum – GPA. ix. On coming to know about the said fraud, the petitioner herein has already filed a suit O.S.No.34 of 2023 seeking declaration that the said judgment and decree is not binding on him. x. He has also filed I.A.No.238 of 2023 in the said suit seeking suspension of the operation of the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018. Learned Principal District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, granted interim injunction vide order dated 24.02.2023, subsequently, the said I.A.No.238 of 2023 was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2023. xi. Aggrieved by the said order, he has preferred CMA No.613 of 2023 and the same is pending. 1 st respondent/plaintiff filed E.A.No.164 of 2019 in E.P.No.249 of 2022 seeking police aid. xii. During the cross-examination, respondent No.1/ plaintiff has admitted that he has sold the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas, which is part of suit schedule property in O.S.No.769 of 2010. xiii. Thus, the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 is liable to be set aside and all the further proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 are liable to be stayed. 9. 1 st respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said applications contending :- i. The petitioner herein/Defendant No.1 being the respondent in the appeal vide A.S.No.8 of 2022 preferred by the Defendant Nos.2 and 3, cannot seek stay of operation of judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 which has become final against him. ii. There are no interim orders in A.S.No.8 of 2022. iii. He did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. iv. He cannot pursue parallel remedies i.e. filing O.S.No.34 of 2023 and I.A.No.338 of 2023 and the present applications. ii. There are no interim orders in A.S.No.8 of 2022. iii. He did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. iv. He cannot pursue parallel remedies i.e. filing O.S.No.34 of 2023 and I.A.No.338 of 2023 and the present applications. v. The petitioner did not enter into witness box in O.S.No.769 of 2010. He has not preferred any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree and it attained finality in respect of petitioner/Defendant No.1. vi. He cannot take plea of fraud in the present interlocutory applications. 10. Thus, 1 st respondent/plaintiff/Decree Holder sought to dismiss both the applications. 11. Vide impugned order dated 10.09.2025, learned appellate Court dismissed both the applications holding that the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 and thus, he is not aggrieved by the same, he cannot plead fraud in the present applications. Therefore, the said applications filed by him are not maintainable. 12. Challenging the said common order dated 10.09.2025, the petitioner filed the present revisions. 13. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent, made their submissions extensively. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil vs. Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead ) through L.Rs. , AIR 2003 SC 1754 , Azgar Barid (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Mazamb , AIR 2022 SC 1304 , Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Kumar , Civil Appeal No.2794 of 2022 paragraph No.13 S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath , 1994 (1) SCC 1 , United India Insurance Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh , (2000) 3 SCC 581 , Ram Kumar vs. State of UP , AIR 2022 SC 4705 K.D.Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. , (2008) 12 SCC 481 , State of Orissa vs. Fakir Charan Sethi , AIR 2015 SC 246 , Vijay Syal vs. State of Punjab , (2003) 9 SCC 401 Chairman – cum – M.D. Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha , (2011) 5 SCC 142 Rama Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi , (2003) 8 SCC 319 , Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Fatima Fouzla vs. Walashan Prince Moazzam Jah Bahadur , AIR 1989 AP 315 , this Court in K.Anjaiah vs. The Asst. Ananta Saha , (2011) 5 SCC 142 Rama Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi , (2003) 8 SCC 319 , Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Fatima Fouzla vs. Walashan Prince Moazzam Jah Bahadur , AIR 1989 AP 315 , this Court in K.Anjaiah vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Proh.& Excise , 2023 (1) ALD 121 15. Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, placed reliance on the principle laid down by Division Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Pratap Singh Verma vs. State of H.P. , 2016 SCC OnLine HP 672 16. The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that the petitioner herein is Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. 1 st respondent/ plaintiff has filed the said suit against the petitioner herein and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not enter into witness box. Ultimately, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District decreed the said suit on 31.12.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.8 of 2022 challenging the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008, they have also filed interlocutory applications seeking suspension of the operation of the said judgment and decree and also to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022, the same were dismissed. They did not take any steps challenging the said order. Thus, the said order attained finality. 17. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein/Defendant No.1 has filed a suit vide O.S.No.848 of 2019 (O.S.No.2030 of 2022) against the 1 st respondent/plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction. He also filed an application vide I.A.No.369 of 2019 for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. Vide order dated 18.12.2020, learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, initially granted interim injunction and later modified it as status quo on contest. Challenging the said order dated 18.12.2020, the petitioner herein/Defendant No.1 filed appeal vide CMA No.2 of 2021. The same is pending. 18. Vide order dated 18.12.2020, learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, initially granted interim injunction and later modified it as status quo on contest. Challenging the said order dated 18.12.2020, the petitioner herein/Defendant No.1 filed appeal vide CMA No.2 of 2021. The same is pending. 18. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the said appeal vide CMA No.2 of 2021 and the suit vide O.S.No.2030 of 2022, the petitioner herein has filed a suit vide O.S.No.34 of 2023 against 1 st respondent herein/plaintiff, T.V.Vijaya Saradhi, Smt. T.Vahini Vedatam and Tadipally Rajani, to declare Agreement – cum – General Power of Attorney bearing document No.2781 of 2007, sale deed bearing document Nos.2193 of 2009, 5726 of 2019 and 5737 of 2019 and Judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 as null and void and not binding on him and also for perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.24 guntas in Sy.No.573/AA/1, Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.573 and 574 situated at Old Alwal Municipality. He has also filed two applications vide I.A.Nos.237 and 238 of 2023 in O.S.No.34 of 2023 seeking temporary injunction against 1 st respondent herein from alienating the suit schedule property and for suspension of operation of judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 respectively. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri, dismissed both the applications vide common order dated 09.10.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has also preferred an appeal vide CMA No.613 of 2023 and the same is pending. 19. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed the aforesaid two applications vide I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 in A.S.No.8 of 2022 seeking stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 and suspend the operation of judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. 20. Thus, the petitioner herein is pursuing parallel remedies in O.S.No.34 of 2023 and also in I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 in A.S.No.8 of 2022. 21. Admittedly, he has not preferred any appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. Only Defendant Nos.2 and 3 preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.8 of 2022. In the said appeal, they have also filed two interlocutory applications seeking suspension of the said judgment and decree and to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 and the same were dismissed. 22. As discussed supra, I.A. Nos. Only Defendant Nos.2 and 3 preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.8 of 2022. In the said appeal, they have also filed two interlocutory applications seeking suspension of the said judgment and decree and to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 and the same were dismissed. 22. As discussed supra, I.A. Nos. 237 and 238 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein / Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.34 of 2023 were dismissed by the trial Court on 09.10.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed the aforesaid two applications vide I.A. Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 in A.S.No.8 of 2022. Thus, the petitioner herein is pursuing parallel remedies. He has filed the aforesaid two interlocutory applications on dismissal of Interlocutory Applications filed by him in O.S.No.34 of 2023 and during pendency of CMA No.613 of 2023. It is an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court dismissed both the applications vide impugned common order dated 10.09.2025. 23. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that 1 st respondent/plaintiff/Decree Holder obtained the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 by playing fraud, the petitioner herein cannot plead fraud without preferring an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. However, he has also filed a suit O.S.No.34 of 2023 to declare the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 is not binding on him. He has to raise all these contentions in O.S.No.34 of 2023 and he is a party in A.S.No.8 of 2022 and he can supplement contentions of D.2 and D.3 before the appellate Court in the said appeal. He cannot pursue parallel remedies. It is an abuse of process of law. Upon consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court dismissed both the applications vide I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein. It is a reasoned order and well founded. It does not require interference by this Court in the present revisions. 24. The petitioner placed reliance on catena of judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts, but the facts of said cases are different from the facts of the case on hand. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed. 24. The petitioner placed reliance on catena of judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts, but the facts of said cases are different from the facts of the case on hand. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revisions shall stand closed.