N.V.B. Gangadhara Rao v. Smt. Kavitha Rani

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

A\ llY}ER TsAD WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:4146 OF 2012 (Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated. 31-05-2012 in lA.No.32 of 2012 in O.P.No. '135 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family court at Hyderabad) Between:

'1 . N.V.B. Gangadhara Rao, S/o N.V. Ramana Murthy,age aboul 47 years, Private Service R/o Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

2. SlVt. NB. Nagarathnamma, Wo N.V. Ramana Murthy,aged about 62 years, Housewife R/o tVlG 16, Ramanaiahpeta, Kakinada, E.G. District.

...Petitioner/Respondent/ Petitioner

AND

1. Smt. Kavitha Rani, Wo N.V.B. Gangadhara Rao, Rlo2-2-647115213, Central Excise Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad

...Respondents/Respondent/Petitioner

l.A. NO: 1OF 2012 CRPMP. NO: 5483 OF 2012 ( ) Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of further proceedings in OP NO. 1395 o'f 2010 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad.

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. M R S SRINIVAS Counselforthe Respondents: SRI K SURESH REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CIVIL REVISION PETITION No,4146 of 2O12 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, is filed by the revision petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the order, dated 31.05.2012, passed in I.A.No.32 of 2012 in O.S.No.1395 of 2010 by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the subject Interlocutory Application filed under Section 10 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.1395 of 2010 till disposal oF appeals in F.C.A.Nos.3B and 221 oF 2010 pending before this Court, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and perused the record, 3.

In spite oF service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/plalntiff.

4.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/deFendants would submit that identical facts and issues are required to be determined in both the appeals in F.C.A.Nos.38 and 227 of 2010, as well as in the subject suit in O.S.No.1395 of 2010. The subject suit in O.S.No.1395 of 2010 was filed subsequent to institution of the said appeals. Therefore, O.S.No.1395 of 2010 is required to be stayed till completion of the proceedings in F.C.A.Nos.38 and 22t of 2010 pending beFore this Court. It is further submitted that without adverting to the material facts in

crp-4146_2012 correct perspective/ the Court below erred in dismissing the subject Interlocutory Application and ultimately, prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the subject Interlocutory Application as prayed for.

5.

The revision petitioners/defendants filed the appeals in F,C.A.Nos.38 and 22L of 2010 pending before this Court aggrieved by the order, dated 29.10.2009, passed in O.P.No.779 of 2005 and counter claim filed in the said O.P. by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said O.P.No.779 of 2005 filed for divorce was dismissed and counter claim filed for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed, whereas the subject suit in O.S.No.1395 of 2010 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, is filed by the respondent/plaintiff, for recovery of amount, gold, silver articles, mentioned in the plaint schedule, with interest @ 18% per annum thereon, said to have been given in the marriage by the parents of the respondent/plaintiFf. 6.

As seen from the averments in O.S.No.1395 of 2010 as well as appeals in F.C.A.Nos.38 and 22I of 2010, they are filed seeking distinct relieFs with distinct prayers and distinct pleadings. The issues that are required to be determined in O.S.No.1395 of 2010 and F.C.A.Nos.3B and 22t of 2010 are distinct. The Court below has examined the submissions made on behalf oF the revision petitioners/defendants in detail and also adverted to the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C and was pleased to dismiss the subject Interlocutory Application holding that the subject matter in O.S.No.1395 of 2010 and the subject

Dr SA.J ctp-4146 2012 J matter in F.C.A.Nos.38 and 227 of 2010 are distinct and issues are not directly and substantially similar. The finding recorded by the Court below is based on the material placed on record. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, Section 10 of C.P.C. he has no application to stay the subject O.S,No.1395 of 2010 as prayed for. The Court below is justified in passing the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be on order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.

SD/. K.AMMAJI //TRUE COPYII ASSIST GISTRAR To, S N OFFICER

1. The Judge, Family court at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRt. M R S SRIN|VAS Advocate [OpUC]

3. One CC to SRl. K SURESH REDDY Advocate tOpUCl

4. Two CD Copies rtl,,

L HIGH COURT DATED:19/0212020

ORDER

..:

.'r$\ i \\- t'

t ,v \=tz CRP.No.4146 ot 2012 ,.8 s (6 cLt DISMISSENG \s\, '

r fc-s'7' eLt )\-zx'1tf^