KARRI SATYANARAYANA Vs. PICHIKA VEERRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, 8 in all, are the same in each of these seven Civil Revision Petitions. All the petitioners, in these Civil Revision Petitions, claimed to have entered into oral agreements of sale in respect of certain landed property with the respondents and their predecessors-in-title. The petitioners, to begin with, filed O.S. No.145 of 1984 in the trial Court for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement of sale dated 30-11-1964. In that suit the petitioners claimed that they were put in possession of the land in question in pursuance of the said alleged oral agreement of sale dated 30-11-1964. The defendants denied the alleged oral agreement of sale as well as the alleged delivery of possession of the land in question in pursuance of the alleged oral agreement of sale. The trial Court, after due trial, dismissed the said suit. The plaintiffs agrrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court made in O.S. No.145 of 1984 have preferred A.S. No.1404 of 1989 in this Court and the same is pending. The defendants in O.S. No.145 of 1984, contending that by virtue of an ex parte interim injunction granted by-the trial Court in O.S. No.145 of 1984 in favour of the plaintiffs purported to have been in possession of the property in question after trespassing into the said property, filed O.S. No.105 of 1985 in the trial Court for ejection of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.145 of 1984 from the schedule property, for possession of the Schedule property and for damages for use and occupation of the schedule land. Subsequently the six more suits came to be filed in the trial Court; O.S. No.96 of 1985, O.S. No.97 of 1985, and O.S. No.98 of 1985 for recovery of possession and damages and whereas O.S. No.110 of 1986, O.S. No.102 of 1986 and O.S. No.292 of 1990 for a decree of specific performance.

(2.) In A.S. No-1404 of 1989 filed in this Court against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No-145 of 1984,C.M.P.No.7912 of 1989 was filed under Sec. 151 of CPC seeking stay of trial of the aforementioned seven suits pending on the file of the trial Court. This Court passed an ex parte order in the said C.M.P. No.7912 of 1989 initially staying trial of the suits. However, subsequently the ex parte stay was vacated and the trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial of the suits. After this event, the petitioners in these revisions who are also the parties in the aforementioned seven suits filed applications under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of trial of the suits pending disposal of A.S. No.1404 of 1989 pending on the file of this Court. LA. No.3076 of 1992 filed in O.S.No.105 of 1985 was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 14-10-1992 mainly on the ground that the conditions, the existence of which are necessary to stay the trial of a suit under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure do not exist and the matter in issue in O.S. No.105 of 1985 is not directly and substantially in issue in previous suit in O.S. No.145 of 1984. Against this order of rejection C.R.P. No.287 of 1993 is filed in this Court. The I.As. 3133 of 1992, 3131 of 1992, 3132 of 1992, 3134 of 1992, 3135 of 1992 and 3136of 1992 filed under Section lOof Code of Civil Procedure in O.S. No.98 of 1995,O.S. No.96 of 1985, O.S. No.97 of 1985, O.S. No.110 of 1986, O.S. No.102 of 1986 and O.S. No.292 of 1990 respectively for stay of trial of those suits were also rejected by the learned trial Judge by a common order dated 26-10-1992 mainly on the ground that the similar relief was sought in C.M.P. No.7912 of 1989 filed in A.S. No.l404of 1989 in this Court and though thisCourt initially granted an ex parte interim stay of trial of the suits, subsequently vacated the same directing the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the suits and in that view of the matter stay of suits under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial Court is not permissible. In both the orders under revision in this batch of seven petitions the learned trial Judge has also noted the fact that the application under Sec.10 of Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed after evidence was over and the argument on behalf of the plaintiffs was concluded, as an additional reason to reject the applications. Against the rejections of those Interlocutory Applications Civil Revision Petitions 288 of 1993,289 of 1993,290 of 1993,291 of 1993,292 of 1993 and 293 of 1993 are preferred in this Court. The petitioners-defendants, before the trial Court contended that the issues involved in O.S. No.145 of 1984 and the aforementioned seven other suits are directly and substantially one and the same and since the issues raised in O.S. No.145 of 1984 are seized by this Court in A.S. No.1404 of 1989, the trial of the remaining suits by the trial Court is liable to be stayed as required under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure pending disposal of A.S. No.1404 of 1989.

(3.) The facts-situation of each of these cases are substantially similar and the questions of law which arise for consideration are identical. Hence all these Civil Revision Petitions were clubbed and heard together.