9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . praying for stay of the proceedings including the hearing of the appeal in R.C.A.No.24 of 1996 pending disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.57 of 1995 pending on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The case of the revision petitioners is that they have preferred R.C.A.No.24 of 1996 against the order of eviction made in R.C.C.No.30 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kakinada. It is also their case that they are disputing the title of the respondent over the petition schedule property. The 1st petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner and the sister of the respondent. She filed a suit in O.S.No.937 of 1987 for declaration that Ex.A5-registered sale deed dated12.05.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made applicable to the Rent Control proceedings, it is a fit matter where the relief has to be granted by resorting Section 151 C.P.C. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance in K.V.UMA MAHESWARA RAO VS. GANDAM SUJATHA1. 4. The learned counsel Sri Ravi Kumar representing Sri V.L.N.Murthy had contended that Section 10 C.P.C. has no application at all to the rent control proceedings. The learned counsel had placed strong reliance in GOLLU BHAVANI SANKAR VS.BHOGAVALLI RAJESWARA RAO2, AMRUTLAL VS. THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER, HYDERABAD3 and also a decision reported in M.SUBBARAMAYYA VS.B.N.SWAMY4. The learned counsel had drawn my attention that the revision petitioners had filed an application under Section 10 C.P.C. in I.A.No.308 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fs' suit cannot be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. In Amrutlal's Case ( Supra-3) a Division Bench while dealing with this question had clearly held that Section 10 C.P.C. cannot be availed of by the Rent Controller, to stay the proceedings before him. Rent Controller cannot even stay the suit invoking Section 151 C.P.C. 8. The learned counsel representing the petitioners had placed strong reliance on K.V.Uma Maheswararao's case. In the said decision it was observed that the Subsequent O.P. filed by the respondent wife under the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, though a special enactment and is to be tried by a Special Court, cannot be proceed with pending the earlier suit, where the matter in issue is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
