Kodali Venkata Padmakar Rao Vs Koneru Ramesh Babu(Died)

Kodali Venkata Pad m akar Rao, S/o. Late Kodali Basava p unna Rao, Aged About 61 Years , R/o.H.No.25-2-78, Ward No.4 (Old H.No.4-4-114) 4th Lane Chandramo u li Nagar, Guntur 522007.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

Koneru Ramesh Bab u died(DIED)

¶15

Kothapalli Uma Mahe s wara Rao (DIED)

¶16

Kodali Indira, W/o. M a llikarjuna Rao, D/o. Late Uma Mahe s wara Rao, Aged About 70 Ye a rs, Home Maker, R/o. Pedaravu r u Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntu r District 522202.

¶17

Kothapalli Ramesh, S /o. Late Uma Maheswara Rao, Age d About 66 Years, Rtd., Employ e e, R/o. Pedaravum Village, Ten a li Mandal, Guntur District 52220 2 .

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.Mr.I.VENKATA SATY A NARAYANA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

Smt.NIMMAGADDA R EVATHI

¶23

2

¶24

The Court made the following Order:

¶25

Aggrieved by the orders dated 13.12.2024 in I.A.No.809 of 2024 in I.A.No.573 of 2010 in O.S.No.69 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, the present Revision Petition is filed.

¶26

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendants in the said suit filed I.A.No.573 of 2010 under Sections 10 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of the trial of the suit, till the disposal of Second Appeal No.562 of 2009 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The stay application was allowed by an order dated 06.04.2011. Subsequently after 13 years, on 03.04.2024 the stay granted in I.A.No.573 of 2010 dated 06.04.2011 was vacated on the premise that the defendants failed to furnish the status of S.A.No.562 of 2009. Seeking restitution of the stay order, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein who were added as defendant Nos.3 and 4 as per the orders dated 28.10.2024 in I.A.No.459 of 2024, filed the I.A.No.809 of 2024 which came to be allowed by the order impugned in the present Revision Petition.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the order under challenge is not sustainable as the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the matter in the correct perspective. He submits that the learned

¶29

3

¶30

Trial Court erred in restoring the stay orders in the subject matter suit in O.S.No.69 of 2006 though the relief sought for in the said suit and the relief in O.S.No.124 of 1997 against which S.A.No.562 of 2009 is pending are different. He submits that as the parties in the suits and the relief sought therein are different, the learned Trial Court ought not to have restored the stay orders. Referring to Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, he submits that the said provision applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter proceedings in two suits is identical, but such a situation is not attracted in the present case and as such, there is no justification for restoring the stay. He also contended that in view of the death of the appellant in the Second Appeal, the proceedings were automatically abated and virtually no Second Appeal is pending. In such circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the Order under challenge restoring the stay orders with a direction to submit the status of the Second Appeal and the efforts of the respondents herein for early disposal of the same in each and every adjournment is misconceived. Making the said submissions and relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1) National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C.Parameshwara¹ , 2) ASPI JAL and another v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor² and 3) Usha & Another v. Shahjad Bi @ Sejad & Others³ , the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition.

¶31

1 (2005) 2 SCC 256

¶32

2 (2013) 4 SCC 333

¶33

3 2024 (3) Civ.CC 138

¶34

4

¶35

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions to sustain the order under Revision. She contends that the defendants in O.S.No.69 of 2006 / respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A.No.573 of 2010 seeking stay of trial of the suit in O.S.No.69 of 2006 till the disposal of S.A.No.562 of 2009 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh specifically asserting that the contract and the sale dated 01.09.1973 & 06.09.1973 in O.S.No.69 of 2006 is directly and substantially the issue in O.S.No.124 of 1997, against the Judgment and Decree of which, the matter was carried by way of an appeal and thereafter S.A.No.562 of 2009. The learned Trial Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, was pleased to grant stay of the proceedings in O.S.No.69 of 2006 as long back as on 06.04.2011 and the same was in operation for about 13 years. She submits that unfortunately, due to the death of the defendants 1 & 2 / respondents 1 & 2, there was no representation on their behalf and ultimately on 03.04.2024, the stay order dated 06.04.2011 was vacated for non-furnishing of information about the status of the Second Appeal. She submits that the respondents 3 and 4 herein, after they were added as legal representatives of the deceased defendants, filed I.A.No.809 of 2024 for restitution of the stay order and the learned Trial Court, after considering the matter in detail and by assigning cogent reasons, restored the stay orders passed in I.A.No.573 of 2010 dated 06.04.2011. She submits that the contention that the subject matter in the suits referred to above is different, is not tenable, more particularly, in the light of the findings recorded in the order dated 06.04.2011 while disposing off I.A.No.573 of 2010. She submits that in fact, the Revision Petitioner herein is

¶36

5

¶37

the 6^th respondent in S.A.No.562 of 2009 in which L.R., Petition was already filed and in such circumstances, the contention contra to the effect that no Second Appeal is pending merits no appreciation. She submits that the order under challenge does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Revision Petition.

¶38

On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court.

¶39

Point:

¶40

At the outset, it may be noted from the record, which is not in dispute that in O.S.No.69 of 2006, the original defendants / respondents 1 & 2 herein filed I.A.No.573 of 2010 and stay of trial of the said suit was granted on 06.04.2011. It is also not in dispute that the said order was passed after contest and the learned Trial Court allowed the said I.A., while recording its findings / conclusions which reads as follows:

¶41

“It is no doubt true that the subject matter in this suit, is same that of the suit in O.S.124/97. Though the said suit was dismissed and A.S.12/06 was filed against the decree and judgment in the said suit that was dismissed and admitted by second appeal in S.A.562/09 is against the said judgment. Hence, subject matter of the said S.A., and this suit is same. As contended by the petitioners / defendants O.S.124/97 is earlier suit and this suit is the later one in respect of the very same property, between the same parties and the very same plea of validity of the alleged two agreements is the matter directly and substantially in issue in the said suit and second appeal. Even

¶42

6

¶43

according to the certified copy of order of High Court in the said S.A., execution of agreement of sales and validity and material alteration is framed as substantial question of law for deciding in S.A. When entire defence raised by petitioners / defendants in this suit is the same and directly and substantially issue in the previously instituted suit which is now at the stage of second appeal, there is every necessity to stay the present suit till the disposal of second appeal on the file of High Court, otherwise, there is every likelihood of conflicting decisions.

¶44

In the result, I.A., is allowed and trial of the suit in this case is stayed till the disposal of S.A.562/2009 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.”

¶45

It appears that no steps have been taken to challenge the said order dated 06.04.2011 for the reasons best known to the petitioner / plaintiff and it remained in force till the same was vacated on 03.04.2024. The contention therefore that the subject matter in the suits is different, merits no appreciation. Further, there is no dispute about the proposition of law in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case in the light of the conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court while disposing of I.A.No.573 of 2010.

¶46

Further, as seen from the record, the respondents 3 and 4 herein are added as defendants 3 and 4 by orders dated 28.10.2024 in I.A.No.458 of 2024. It appears that immediately thereafter they moved an application I.A.No.809 of 2024 on 13.11.2024 seeking restoration of the stay order dated 06.04.2011 which was vacated on 03.04.2024. It may be pertinent to mention here that in the counter-affidavit in I.A.No.809 of 2024, no plea that the subject matter in the suits referred to above is different and as such Section 10 of

¶47

7

¶48

C.P.C., which provides for stay of suit if subject matter in both the suits are identical, is not applicable to the case on hand was taken. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the 6^th respondent in the second appeal. Be that as it may. The learned Trial Court, after due consideration of the matter, including the factum of pendency of the Second Appeal, felt it appropriate to restore the stay order. In the said circumstances, exercise of discretion to restore the stay order, more particularly when the stay is in operation for more than 13 years and vacated only on the premise of non-furnishing of status of the Second Appeal cannot be viewed as perverse or irregular exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Trial Court. Cogent reasons were assigned in the order under challenge.

¶49

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶50

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶51

Date: 22.08.2025 BLV

¶52

8

¶53

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶54

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 185 of 2025

¶55

Dt: 22.08.2025