PALLI RAJULAMMA Vs. PIRLA SEETHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiffs/respondents assailing the orders dated 12.09.2012 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa of Srikakulam District made in I.A. No.239 of 2012 in O.S. No.28 of 2012 filed by the first defendant under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting to grant stay of all further proceedings in the aforementioned suit pending disposal of O.S.No.29 of 2011 on the file of the same Court.

(2.) THE basic facts necessary for consideration are as follows: The instant suit O.S. No.28/2012 (the subsequent suit for brevity) was brought by the plaintiffs 1 to 3/revision petitioners herein and the plaintiff no.4 against the defendants/respondents herein for perpetual injunction to restrain the first defendant and his men, relatives etcetera from ever interfering with the said plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule immoveable property. The first defendant is resisting the said suit. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.28/2012 had brought the first suit O.S. No. 29 of 2011 (the previously instituted suit for brevity) against the plaintiffs 2 and 4 in O.S. No.28/2012 and others as defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of the wet land in an extent of Ac.1.69 cents in Survey No.15/1 situated in Dabbapadu village, Miriyyappalli Cluster of Laxminarusupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. The defendant in the subsequent suit, who had previously instituted his suit for perpetual injunction, had sought stay of the subsequent suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On merits, the trial Court had allowed the petition and stayed the suit in O.S. No.28/2012, which is a subsequent suit. Aggrieved of the said orders, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the subsequent suit had filed the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record.