Decided on December 16,2019

Adapa Eswari Kumari Appellant
Adapa Seena Respondents


- (1.)The present application came to be filed assailing the Order, dtd. 7/8/2019 passed in I.A. No. 742 of 2019, wherein, the application filed by the petitioner to club both the suits i.e., O.S. No. 11 of 2013 and O.S. No. 194 of 2014 was rejected.
(2.)The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. would show that the petitioner/defendant claims to be an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having purchased it from his vendors Smt. Adapa Rajini. Ever since the date of purchase, the defendant claims to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. Appending danger in the hands of the respondent's grandfather, he filed O.S. No. 194 of 2014 before the Nuzivudu Court seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent, their men, kith and kin, followers from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The respondent represented by her grandfather filed O.S. No. 11 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nuzvid and the suit is coming up for crossexamination of PW1. Since, the schedules in both the matters are one and the same and the said two matters are in between the same parties but for different reliefs, an application came to be filed for clubbing O.S. No. 194 of 2014 and O.S. No. 11 of 2013.
(3.)The same is opposed by the respondent/plaintiff stating that the issues involved in both the cases are different, though, the property is same. According to him, even the parties are different. But, however, pleads that both the cases may be tried one after the other and Judgment may be pronounced on the same day so as to avoid conflicting judgments.

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