RADHA AND OTHERS Vs. M RADHAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, against the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.18056 of 2012 in O.S.No.2728 of 2012, in and by which, the said application filed by the second defendant under Sections 10 and 151 of CPC, for staying all further proceedings in the above suit till the final disposal of the appeals in A.S.Nos.343 and 344 of 2012, was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the trial Court failed to consider the materials available on record in its proper perspective and erroneously allowed the application filed under Section 10 of CPC. It is further contended that the trial Court has failed to consider the averments set out in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners, more particularly, that the issues to be determined and the points for adjudication in the suit for redemption filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.2728 of 2012 and the points for adjudication in A.S.Nos.343 and 344 of 2012 are totally separate and different from each other. The trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the second respondent/second defendant has obtained an interim order of stay of the decree passed in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.8681 of 2010 by suppressing the material facts before this Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court may be set aside and the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has relied upon the following decisions:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the dispute between the parties is already decided in the previous suit and now, appeals are only pending as against the previous suit. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the trial Court, after considering the facts of the case and relevant materials available on record, allowed the application filed under Section 10 of CPC and therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.