(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased tobeg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dated 22.12.2025, in I.A No.651 of 2025 in O.S No.69 of 2025, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet, SPSR Nellore,

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 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 all further proceedings in O.S No.69 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpeta, SPSR Nellore, pending disposal of the above revision and pass)

1. Heard Smt. K. Sarita, learned counsel representing Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Phani Teja, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

2. The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 22.12.2025 in I.A.No.651 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.69 of 2025 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.20.01 cents in S.Nos.22-2 and 22-2A of Periyavattu Village, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4. a) In the plaint, it was contended, inter alia, that the schedule property is the plaintiff’s ancestral property and it is Inam land given to pakeers by the Government. The then Special Deputy Tahsildar for Inam, Gudur, granted ryotwari patta under the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. Late Syed Khadar Valli Sahib, father-in-law of the plaintiff, had three sons: Syed Dastagiri Saheb; Syed Mahaboob Hussain (husband of the plaintiff) and Syed Khaja Hussain. The said Syed Khadar Valli Sahib died on 18.06.1968. In the revenue records, the name of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib was entered as the pattadar, and the name of the plaintiff's husband was shown as an enjoyer. The report of the village surveyor and Village Revenue Officer shows that the legal heirs of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib have been in possession of the subject land. The defendants have no right or title over the schedule property. The plaintiff’s husband constructed a house long back, obtained electricity and paid house tax to the Government.

                  b) The family of the plaintiff left an extent of Ac.0.58 cents for a cemetery, and a tomb was also built, and in the revenue records, it is mentioned as a burial ground. The defendants are residents of Tamil Nadu and have nothing to do with the schedule property, and they attacked the son of the plaintiff, resulting in the registration of a case in Crime No.139 of 2024. On 13.04.2025, the defendants and their followers came to the schedule property and created a ruckus. The plaintiff’s son gave a report, and the police registered the same as a case in Crime No.63 of 2025 of Tada Police Station. The legal heirs of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib have moved to other towns to find livelihood, and the plaintiff and her son are taking care of the schedule property.

                  c) In the cause of action Paragraph, it was mentioned that the cause of action for the suit arose on 26.04.2024 when a case was registered against the defendant in Crime No.139 of 2024 and on 13.04.2025 at 11.30 a.m. when the defendants created galata and tried to occupy the cemetery, and police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2025.

5. The defendants filed I.A.No.651 of 2025 under Order XIV Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC to frame a preliminary issue:

                  “Whether the suit is not maintainable, as it is hit by the rule of res judicata, under Section 11 of CPC or not?”

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff’s husband, along with others, filed O.S.No.104 of 2008 against the 3rd petitioner/3rd defendant and others. The said suit was dismissed on 28.12.2016 on merits. The plaintiff’s husband and others filed appeal A.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, and the said appeal was dismissed on 18.08.2022. It was contended that the issue involved in O.S.No.69 of 2025 was already decided in O.S.No.104 of 2008 and, therefore, the judgment operates as res judicata. Hence, the defendants prayed the Court to frame the said issue as a preliminary issue.

7. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter opposing the application. It was contended, inter alia, that O.S.No.104 of 2008 was not filed by the plaintiff but by the third parties against the defendants therein. The suit schedule properties in both the suits are different, and the causes of action are also different. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed to dismiss the application.

5. The trial Court, by an order dated 22.12.2025, allowed the application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issues are normally framed on questions of fact and law. The preliminary issue sought to be framed is a mixed question of law and fact. The object of framing issues is to determine the exact area of conflict between the parties, which can be decided only after trial. The suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction, and the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish her entitlement to the relief sought.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial Court.

8. The point for consideration is:

                  Whether the order dated 22.12.2025 in I.A.No.651 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet, suffers from any illegality warranting interference?

9. Order XIV Rule 1 CPC mandates the framing of issues that arise where a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. Issues are of two kinds, namely, issues of fact and issues of law. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statement, and after examination under Order X Rule 2 CPC and after hearing the parties and their pleaders, ascertain the material propositions of fact or law in respect of which the parties are at variance and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend.

10. Order XIV Rule 2 CPC envisages that the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues. Sub-rule (2) thereof stipulates that, notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, where the Court opines that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if the issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. The Court may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until the preliminary issue has been determined.

11. In the case at hand, the defendants pleaded that the husband of the plaintiff and others filed O.S.No.104 of 2008 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the same property and the said suit was dismissed on 28.12.2016. The appeal filed therefrom, being A.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, was also dismissed on 18.08.2022. The contention of the plaintiff that she is not a party to the suit may not be relevant since the plaintiff is claiming title on the demise of her husband. The trial Court exercised jurisdiction vested in it.

12. The plea of res judicata, of course, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is a mixed question of law and fact. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sathyanath and another vs. Sarojamani1, interfered with the order of the Hon’ble High Court, wherein the Hon’ble High Court directed the trial Court to frame an issue of res judicata as a preliminary issue. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:

                  “34. Therefore, the order of the High Court remanding the matter to the learned trial Court to frame preliminary issues runs counter to the mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code and thus, not sustainable in law. The learned trial court shall record findings on all the issues so that the first appellate court has the advantage of the findings so recorded and to obliviate the possibility of remand if the suit is decided only on the preliminary issue.”

13. Given the expressions of the Apex Court, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the trial court to frame all the necessary issues under Order XIV and record a finding. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.