Toti Babu vs T. Krishnaiah

P.S. Narayana, J.—The Civil Revision Petition is preferred as against an order made in I.A.No.700 of 1999 in O.S.No.726 of 1995 dated 5.10.1999, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

The petitioner in the said application is the plaintiff in O.S.No.726 of 1995, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The application was filed under Sections 10 and 151 of C.P.C., praying for stay of further proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of the suit property.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.726 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of a house site granted by the Government under a patta. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant tried to interfere with his possession and hence he filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was also averred in the affidavit that after the institution of the suit, the defendant had obtained suspension of the house site patta by filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and since the very operation of the suit document was suspended by the competent authority-the Revenue Divisional Officer, he is unable to further proceed with the suit and hence he prayed for stay of all further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

The defendant had filed a detailed counter and had opposed the application. The court below had dismissed the application observing that the proceeding before the revenue authorities, allegedly pending, cannot by itself be a ground for seeking stay of further proceedings in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present CRP is filed.

Sri Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar had contended that unless the dispute is resolved by the revenue authorities, the Civil Court cannot decide anything and though Section 10 C.P.C. is not applicable, u/s 151 C.P.C. exercising inherent powers stay can be granted. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on RAMJI DAYAWALA & SONS (P) LTD Vs. INVEST IMPORT 1 and also N.S. MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA 2 and contended that the Court can exercise the discretion by invoking the powers u/s 151 C.P.C. and grant stay.

Sri Vijayachandra Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondent had contended that Section 10 C.P.C. is not applicable since a revenue proceeding is not a suit within the meaning of Section 10 C.P.C. and inherent powers cannot override the express provisions and had placed reliance on ARJUN SINGH Vs. MOHINDRA KUMAR3, MANOHAR LAL CHOPRA Vs. RAI BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL 4, MINOCHER BEHRAMJI DAMANIA Vs. HEMA N.DADACHANJI AND OTHERS 5. The learned counsel had further contended that the suit was filed in the year 1985 and this application was thought of after a long lapse of time and that itself shows that it is not a bonafide application. The learned counsel also contended that even otherwise it is within the discretion of the Court either to grant stay or not to grant stay in a matter of this nature and inasmuch as the court below had exercised such discretion and had rightly arrived at the conclusion not to grant stay, it is not a case for interference u/s 115 C.P.C.

Having heard both the counsel and having perused the material on record, now the question that has to be decided is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, stay of the suit can be granted u/s 151 C.P.C. exercising the inherent powers of the Court. In Kondapaneni Raghavaiah and Another Vs. Inguva Lakshminarayana and Another, , it is held that in order to attract the terms of Section 151 C.P.C., two conditions have to be satisfied (1) that the applicant for stay has no other remedy available in law, which he can seek from a competent civil court, and (2) that the stay has to be ordered in the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court. It is not case of the Revision Petitioner that he can invoke the provisions of Section 10 C.P.C. though the application was filed u/s 10 r/w. Section 151 C.P.C. As I can see from the material available on record both the parties are contesting the litigation on the strength of pattas granted by the revenue authorities. It is pertinent to note that the revenue proceeding may be continued by either of the parties and in such circumstances, will it be in the interests of justice to grant stay of the proceedings on the ground of the pendency of the revenue proceedings ? It is for the parties to diligently fight the litigation and get the revenue proceedings disposed of before the revenue authorities and merely because a revenue proceeding is pending, a party to a civil litigation will not be justified in invoking either Section 10 or Section 151 C.P.C.

For the reasons recorded above, the court below is justified in dismissing the application filed by the Revision Petitioner and inasmuch as the impugned order is one made in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of the court below, I am not inclined to interfere with such an order exercising the powers u/s 115 C.P.C.

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed, but without costs.