Dismissed

Ankam Lingaiah v. Gajula Mallu

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023CRP/2401/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petition challenging lower court's rejection of stay application under Section 10 CPC, holding that differing reliefs make Section 10 inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Ankam Lingaiah Vs Gajula Mallu — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMAER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2401 OF 2023

¶8

Petition Under Article 227 constitution of lMia against the^{Order dated} 21.O3.2O23 in l.A. No. 43 ot 2023 in A.S. No. 37 ot 2018 on the file of the^{Court of} the Hon'ble lAdditional District Judge, Mancherial.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ankam Lingaiah, S/o. Pocham, Aged about 44^yea$, Occ SCC Employee, R./o. Padthanpally village, Haszipur Mandal, Mancherial District, T.S.

¶11

Ankam Kistaiah, S/o. Pocham, Aged about 39^years, Occ SCC Employee, Rio. Padthanpally village, Haszipur Mandal, Mancherial District, T.S.

¶12

Ankam Mallesh, S/o. Pocham, Aged about 37^years, Occ SCC Employee, Rl/o. Padthanpally village, Haszipur Mandal, Mancherial District, T.S.

¶13

Ankam Lingamma, Wo. Pocham, Aged about 65^years, Occ SCC Employee, Rl/o. Padthanpally village, Haszipur Mandal, Mancherial District, T.S^...

¶14

... Petitioner/Appellants/Defandants

¶15

AND

¶16

Gajula Mallu, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 59^years, Occ Agriculture,^{R/o. Jaina} Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana- 505425

¶17

... RespondenU RespondenUPlaintiff

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may^{be pleased to grant} stay of further proceedings in A.S.No.37l2018, on the file of the^{I AdditionalDistrict} Judge, Mancherial.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI.MRSSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : SRI K LAKSHMI MANOHAR The Court made the following : ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶22

C.R.P.No. 24OL of 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Civil Revision^petition has been fited against the order of the I Additional District Judge, Mancherial, against the order dated 21.O3.2O23 in I.A.No.43l2O23 in A.S.No.37/2018. The I.A. was filed under Section lO of C.p.C. seeking S tay of all further proceedings in A.S.No.37l20 18 in O.S.No.335/2009 rill the disposal of the second appeal before this High Court in S.A.No. 145/2O11.

¶25

Brief facts leading to the fiting of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioners are the defendants in the suit O.S.No. 15/ 1997 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Luxettipet, in respect of the subject matter and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintitfs. Thereafter, the respondents/defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Adilabad, vide A.S.No.6/20O6, which was dismissed and against the said order, the defendants preferred second appeal before the High Court vide S.A. No. L4S l2ol I and the same is pending adjudication. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs filed another suit against the defendants in respect of the suit

¶26

¶27

PilD,J CRP.No.^{24O,of 2023}

¶28

schedule land^{for recovery of the possession and the same was} numbered^{as O.S.No.335} l2OO9^{and the samewas also allowed} anddecreedinfavouroftheptaintiffsandagainstthesame'the defendants^{preferredA S'No 37/2018 along} with l.A.No.43l2O23^{seeking Stay of all further proceedings in the} appeal suit^{till disposalof the secondappeal before the High} iourt in^{S.A.No. l45l2)l1'The IAdditionalDistrict Judge'} Mancherial,^{after hearing both the parties'has rejected the} same by^{observingthat both the suits i'e'' O'S'No'15 11997and} o'S.No.335/2Oogarefordifferentreliefsandtheappealagainst both the^{orders are not pending trial, but are pendingappeals} and therefore,^{the provrsions of Section 1O of C'P'C are not} applicable.^{Challenging the same'the presentCivil Revision} Petition^{hasbeen hled'}

¶29

Learned counsel^{for the petitioners submittedthe} subject^{matter in both the suitsis one and the same and it is on} the basis^{of the judgment and decree in O'S'No'15/1997 ' that} the suit in^{O.S.No.335/2o09has been decreedand therefore'} the Civil^{Court ought to have awaited the decision of the Hon'ble} High Court^{in S.A.No 145/2O 1 1, because' if the said second} appeal is allowed^{in favourof the petitioners/ appe'llants therein'}

¶30

¶31

PIID,J CRP.No. 24o, oJ 2023

¶32

the judgment and decree in O.S.No.335/20O9 would also have to be vacated. In support of his contentions, Section IO of C.P.C. would apply to the facts of the case.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Radhika Konel Parekh Vs. Koael PareLh1.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the order of the lower Court and submitted that the reliefs claimed in both the suits are different i.e., O.S.No. 15/ 1997 was for declaration of title, whereas O.S.No.335/2O09 was for recovery of suit schedule properry and that though the suit schedule property is the same, the reliefs are different and therefore, Section l0 of C.P.C. is not applicable. Further, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of British Indian Corporation Limited Vs, Rashtra Co-Freight Carriers2, and also the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Karri Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Pichika Veerraju and Others3.

¶35

1 AIR 1993 MADRAS 90

¶36

2 (1996) 4 scc 748

¶37

3 146 (r) ALD 616

¶38

¶39

PID,J cRP.th. 24o, of 2023

¶40

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that both the suits i.e., O.S.No. l5l1997 and also O.S.No.335/2OO9 are filed by rhe plaintiffs against the defendants. Both the parties are one and the same and the subject matter of the suit i.e., suit schedule property is also one and the same. However, the reliefs claimed in both the suits are different i.e., O.S.No.15/ 1997 is for declaration of title while O.S.No.335/2OO9 is for recovery of possession. O.S.No. 15/1997 has been decreed and the first appeal filed against the same has also been dismissed and the second appeal is pending adjudication belore the High Court. The lower Court initially, O.S.No.335/2OO9 has S tayed the suit and subsequently the Stay has been vacated. However, the respondents have not challenged the same and only when the appeal against the decree has been filed, the petitioners are seeking Stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree in O.S.No. 15/ 1997. For the sake of completeness and ready reference, the relevant provision of Section 1O of C.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:

¶41

Section 1O of C.P.C.: No Court stnll proceed

¶42

\ with the trial of ang suit in uhich tLE matter in issue \ is olso d.irectlg and substantially in i.ssue in a preuiouslA instituted suit betu.teen the same parties,

¶43

¶44

¶45

PMD,J CRP.No. 24Ot ol 2023

¶46

or between parties under uhom theg or ang of tlrem claim litigating under tLE same title where such suit is pending in the same or ang other Court in^so[India] haue juisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court begond the limits of^3l[India] established or continued bg the^sz [Central Gouentment]^{ss!* * *l} and hauing like jurisdiction, or before^3a[the Supreme Courtl.

¶47

As rightly observed by the lower Court, the object underlying Section l0 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two Courts of concurrent jurisdiction and to avoid recording of conflicting frndings on issues, which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit.

¶48

The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pukhraj D.Jain & Other Vs. G.Gopalakrishna+, has observed Lhat mere filing^{of an opplication underSection10 C.P.C. doesnot in ang} manner put on embargo on the pouer of the Court to examine the merits of the matter. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspi Jal & Another Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjors, has observed that the key words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantiollg in issue in the preuiouslg instituted suit" and tLe test for opplicabilitg of Section 1O of the Code is u.thetlrcr on a fi.nol decision being reached in the

¶49

4 (2004) 7 scc 2sl

¶50

s (20 13) 4 scc 333

¶51

¶52

PMD,J CRP.No. 24Ol of 2023

¶53

:l'

¶54

preuiouslA instituted suit, such decision u-tould operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit

¶55

Therefore, it can be seen that the words used in the provision are that suits are not with regard to the appeals.^Once the trial Court has proceeded^with the^{triai of the suit and has} adjudicated thereon, the second suit^{on [he very same subject} for the very same relief is^{prohibited.However, in this case} before this Court, both the suits^{are for different reliefsand} therefore, Section f 0 of C.P.C. is not applicable.^{As held by the} Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of^{BritishIndian} Corporation Limited^(cited supra),^{where the suits are for} different reliefs and the cause of^{action in both the suitsare} entirely different and there is no^{commonissue directlyor} substantially in both the suits,^{Section10 of C.P.C. is not} applicable. Similar was the^{issuein the case before the Division} Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court^{inthe case of Karri} Satyanarayana (cited supra).^{T}.e decisions relieduponby the} learned counse.l for the^{petitionersare on totally different set of} facts and therefore, are not applicable.^{[n view of the same, this} Civil Revision Petition is^{devoidof merits and it is accordingly} dismissed.