KHANDRIKA JAGADEESHWARA SHARMA Vs. KHANDRIKA CHAYANATHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff No. 1 in O.S.No.1279 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. The 1st respondent herein/the defendant filed I.A.No.1475 of 2005 under Section 10 of CPC seeking stay of the proceedings in the suit till the disposal of Second Appeal No. 437 of 2004 pending on the file of this Court. The said application was allowed by the Court below by order dated 11.04.2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed by plaintiff No. 1.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

(3.) O.S.No.1279 of 2004 has been filed by the revision petitioner seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The revision petitioner/plaintiff No. 1 claims title in respect of the suit schedule property by virtue of a will dated 12.01.1990 executed by his father. It is pleaded that the defendant, who has been in permissive possession of the said property, had earlier filed O.S.No.849 of 1997 claiming that the plaintiffs had executed an agreement of sale dated 18.09.1992 in his favour, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and received full sale consideration. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 04.02.2003 and challenging the same, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.64 of 2003 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The said appeal was allowed by judgment dated 23.01.2004 thereby setting aside the decree for specific performance granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.849 of 1997 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Claiming that the judgment of the appellate Court in A.S.No.64 of 2003 became final, the revision petitioner filed O.S.No.1279 of 2004 for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property contending that the suit for specific performance filed by the defendant having been dismissed, his possession of the plaint schedule property has become totally unlawful. The defendant filed written statement contesting the suit claim. That apart, the defendant also filed I.A.No.1475 of 2005 under Section 10 of CPC for stay of the suit proceedings stating that against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.64 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, he preferred Second Appeal No. 437 of 2004, which was admitted by this Court and status quo was directed to be maintained by order dated 29.06.2004 in C.M.P.No.9618 of 2004. While pleading that the subject matter of O.S.No.1279 of 2004 and the subject matter in the earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.849 of 1997 is one and the same and the proceedings are between the same parties, the proceedings in O.S.No.1279 of 2004 were sought to be stayed till the disposal of the Second Appeal No. 437 of 2004 on the file of this Court. Having regard to the fact that both the plaintiffs and the defendant are parties to the Second Appeal No. 437 of 2004 and the subject matter of both the proceedings is the same, the Court below allowed the application and granted stay of proceedings in O.S.No.1279 of 2004 till the disposal of Second Appeal No. 437 of 2004 pending on the file of this Court.