N. VADIVELU Vs. GAJENDIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.816 of 2018 in O.S.No.466 of 1989, in dismissing the application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) The petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.466 of 1987, before the learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur, seeking for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents herein.

(3.) In the said suit, the petitioners herein filed interlocutory application in I.A.No.816 of 2018, under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of C.P.C to stay the entire proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.466 of 1987, till the disposal of the S.A.No.7 of 2014 pending on the file of this Court, which was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 06.10.2018. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr.V.Lakshmmarayanan submitted that the above said application was filed due to the reason that the brother of the revision petitioner filed a partition suit in O.S.No.49 of 2000, which was decreed, as against which A.S.No.16 of 2011 was filed and the same was allowed and as against the same, S.A.No.71 of 2014 is filed before this Court and the same is pending. Therefore under such circumstances, the above said interlocutory application has been filed to stay the entire proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.466 of 1987, till the disposal of the S.A.No.7 of 2014. 3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.466 of 1987 is mentioned as item no.7 of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.49 of 2000which was filed for partition, In case, if the said property is alloted to some body else, the petitioners may not have any right over the same and therefore in such circumstances, the proceedings in O.S.No.466 of 1987, is unnecessary and it would ultimately waste the precious time of the Court. Thus, in order to avoid the same, the above interlocutory application was filed. However, without considering the said aspects, the court below dismissed the application and therefore the same warrants interference.