N LATCHANNA Vs. M SRIRAMULU
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-23
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 07,1992

NALAMATI LATCHANNA Appellant
VERSUS
MASINA SRIRAMULU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BHARAT NIDHI LTD VS. SHITAL PRASHAD JAIN [REFERRED TO]
BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ARKA LAKSHMI MANOHARI AND ORS. VS. PILLAMOGOLLA RANGA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2015-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
K N JAMUNA VS. R ESWAR KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2008-11-16] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Respondent herein is the Plaintiff is O.S.Nos.464/83 and 372/88 on the file of the PrincipalSubordinate Judge's Court,Kakinada. Originally, the respondent filed O.S.No.178/83 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif's Court, Kakinada for declaration of his fishing rights in Chintalacheruvu and consequently to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with the said rights. A temporary injunction was also obtained by the respondent-plaintiff restraining the defendants therein from obstructing him from catching fish. It is under the background that the defendants therein have obstructed the plaintiff from catching fish and thereby caused damages to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, the respondent-Plaintiff filed O.S.No.464/83 before the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kakinadaagainst the defendants therein for recovery of the said damages. Later on, he filed O.P.No. 174 /88 before the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada for transferringO.S.No.178/83 to the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada where O.S.No.464/83 was pending and sought indulgence of the Court for trying the suits together. Pursuant to the transfer order, the suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.372/88.
(2.)It is seen that the learned III Additional District Judge while passing order in O.P.No. 174/88 observed that the matters could be tried together by one and the same court in order to avoid conflicting judgments. The learned District Judge further observed that whether all the matters will be clubbed together or may be tried separately and simultaneously, is the matter to be decided by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. Under this background, the respondent- plaintiff filed I.A.No.3341/89 in O.S.No.464/83 praying for clubbing both the suits, recording common evidence and pronouncing common judgment. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge by order dated 14-2-1990 has allowed I.A.No.3341/89 and directed clubbing of the suits together, recording common evidence and passing common judgment in both the suits. As against this order, the present revision petition is filed by defendant No.14 in O.S.No.464/ 83.
(3.)Sri P. Venkataramana Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, has contended that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting decisions, it is better the suits could be clubbed together, common evidence could be recorded and common judgment could be pronounced and, therefore, he justified the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in I.A.No.3341/89. Sri C. Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is defendant No.14 in O.S.No.464/83, has, on the contrary, contended that these suits cannot be tried together inasmuch as the first suit - O.S.No.372/88 - is filed by the respondent herein for declaration of his fishing rights in Chintalacheruvu and for a consequential relief of restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the said rights, whereas O.S.No.464/83 is filed for recovery of damages said to have been caused by the defendants therein. He further contended that the first suit is for a different relief, that is to say, for a declaration and the second suit is for damages, it is admitted that the plaintiff and some of the defendants in both the suits are common and some of the defendants are strangers. It is under this background, Sri Subba Rao contended that the respondent herein has to first establish his rights in O.S.No.372/88 and secondly the extent of damages said to have been caused by each of the defendants in O.S.No.464/83 has to be separately assessed. He has further contended that some of the defendants are admittedly different and, therefore, the two suits cannot be clubbed and tried together and common judgment cannot be passed.
;


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