BUSIPATI CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. NARLA VENKATANNA ALIAS NARLA VENKATAIAH
LAWS(APH)-2019-12-42
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 11,2019

Busipati Chandrasekhar Appellant
VERSUS
Narla Venkatanna Alias Narla Venkataiah Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHYAMALI DAS VS. ILLA CHOWDHRY [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.129 of 2011, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dtd. 9/4/2019 in I.A.No.42 of 2019 in O.S.No.129 of 2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to dispose of both the suits O.S.No.129 of 2011 and O.S.No.21 of 2011 simultaneously.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed above suit O.S.No.129 of 2011 for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction against the respondents. The petitioner filed I.A.No.206 of 2018 in the above suit to implead one P.V. Nagendra Prasad, who is plaintiff in O.S.No.21 of 2011 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, as 3rd defendant in the suit, as the petition schedule land in both suits is one and the same, with a view to avoid conflict of judgments and multiplicity of litigations and on contest, I.A.No.106 of 2018 was dismissed. The petitioner preferred C.R.P.No.3976 of 2018 before this court against the order in I.A.No.106 of 2018.
(3.)This court, while disposing of the said Civil Revision Petition, observed that 'to avoid conflicting judgments, it is appropriate to try both the suits by one of the competent court, in case both suits are tried by one Court simultaneously impleadment of parties become unnecessary' and in view of the orders passed by this court, the petitioners filed the present application to dispose of above suits O.S.No.129 of 2011 and O.S.No.21 of 2011 simultaneously, to avoid conflicting judgments'. The trial Court, after considering contentions of both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the petition stating that the suit O.S.No.21 of 2011 is filed by one P.V. Nagendra Prasad against the 2nd defendant in the suit O.S.No.129 of 2011 to direct the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff therein by receiving balance sale consideration and to pay costs of the suit. The petitioners filed O.S.No.129 of 2011 against the respondents in respect of plot No.107 admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.108 with boundaries: East: Plot No.106; West: House bearing D.No.1/85; North: Plot No.113; South: Road; SC boys hostel with measurements East-Est: 33ft; North-South: 66ft. The suit O.S.No.21 of 2011 is coming for submitting arguments, as the entire evidence was adduced by both parties. Whereas O.S.No.129 of 2011 is coming for cross-examination of PW.1, the stages of both the suits are entirely different. In O.S.No.129 of 2011, it is now coming for cross-examination of PW.1. In those circumstances, the trial Court dismissed the application stating that the clubbing of both the suits at this stage is not proper.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.