Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 200 (AP)

Mangali Satukuri Anjaiah v. Nethi Rajalah

2003-02-06

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri T. Ramulu, the counsel representing the revision petitioner and sri J. Kanakayya, the counsel representing the respondents. ( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition was filed along with an application for condonation of delay of one day and the delay was condoned and the matter is coming up for admission. At the stage of admission both the counsel requested that the main civil revision petition itself may be disposed of, for the reason, if the matter is delayed the disposal of the suits wills also be delayed. In view of the said representation made by both the counsel, at the stage of admission, the civil revision petition itself is being finally disposed of. ( 3 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner, the defendant in o. S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior civil Judge at Siddipet aggrieved by an order dated 11-9-2002 which was made on the memo filed in O. S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddepet, by the counsel for the petitioner. A memo was filed in O. S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the senior Civil Judge at Siddipet on the ground that the suit claim in O. S. No. 4 of 2002 and the suit claim in O. S. No. 5 of 2002 are connected and an issue also was framed, accordingly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it is necessary to club O. S. No. 5 of 2002 with O. S-No. 4 of 2002 for disposal. As per law, the learned Judge had not permitted common trial of O. S. No. 4 of 2002 and O. S. No. 5 of 2002 and had rejected the memo on the ground that the causes of action in both the suits are not one and the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil Revision Petition is filed. As per law, the learned Judge had not permitted common trial of O. S. No. 4 of 2002 and O. S. No. 5 of 2002 and had rejected the memo on the ground that the causes of action in both the suits are not one and the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil Revision Petition is filed. ( 4 ) SRI T. Ramulu, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had submitted that in fitness of things and in the interest of both the parties, in fact joint memo could have been filed for disposal of both the suits even by a common judgment, in view of the defence taken by the petitioner/defendant in both the suits, the learned counsel also had taken me through the respective pleadings of the parties, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in both the suits and also written statements filed by defendant in both the suits. The learned counsel further submitted that consolidation of suits, ordering joint trial or clubbing of the suits all these will be done keeping in view the convenience of the parties depending upon the parties to the litigation, subject matter of the litigation, nature of the defence raised in the suits and keeping in view the issues which had been settled. The learned Senior civil Judge at Siddipet could have permitted both the matters to be tried and disposed of, if necessary, even by delivering a common judgment. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Kanakayya, the counsel representing the respondents had pointed out mat the are two plaintiffs in one suit and there is only one plaintiff in the other suit and apart from this, the documents relied on in both the suits are different and the causes of action also are different. The learned counsel also submitted that in one suit already arguments had been heard and the other suit is at the stage of recording evidence. Hence the rejection of memo by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet is well justified. The learned counsel also further pointed out that this is not a case of a joint memo being filed by consent of the parties and this practice of filing a memo for clubbing suits is not contemplated by law and this practice has to be deprecated. The learned counsel also further pointed out that this is not a case of a joint memo being filed by consent of the parties and this practice of filing a memo for clubbing suits is not contemplated by law and this practice has to be deprecated. The learned counsel further pointed out that the rejection of memo is on the ground that causes of action are different and hence the impugned order cannot be faulted on any ground. Whatsoever, while concluding his submissions the learned counsel also had brought to my notice that the counsel representing the respective parties conducting trial had agreed that both the suits may be tried and disposed of independently and simultaneously. ( 6 ) HEARD both the counsel and also perused the material available on record. The relied prayed for in the memo is for clubbing of O. S. No. 5 of 2002 and O. S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of learned Senior Civil judge, Siddipet for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. It is not in dispute that the parties in both the suits are one and the same. But, however in O. S. No. 4 of 2002 there is one more additional plaintiff. The suits are based for recovery of money of the strength of a registered mortgage and also on the strength of an unregistered mortgage deed had been decided by this court wherein it was observed that the said document can be read as evidence only for collateral transaction not required to be effected by the said unregistered document. When a party to the suit intends clubbing of suits or consolidation of suits or ordering of joint trial of suits, it may be that both the parties may file joint memos requesting the court for disposal by trying such matters jointly. However, when one of the parties to the litigation alone intends to have such a relief and the other party opposes for whatever reason it may be, it is always advisable and desirable that such party should make a regular application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for such a relief. Hence filing of memos in luch cases cannot be encouragrd and such pnetice may have to be deprecated. Hence filing of memos in luch cases cannot be encouragrd and such pnetice may have to be deprecated. In the present case, as can be reflected from the factual matrix the parties are the same, the defence is that both the transactions constitute one and the same transaction relating to the recovery of the amount, no doubt, these are all matters touching the merits of the pending suits which may have to be decided on the evidence which will be adduced by both the parties. ( 7 ) IN Dasari Suryanarayana v. Dasari venkata Subbaiah1 it was held that Court can order joint trial of suits in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure. In Kali Charan Dutt v. Surja Kumar Mondal2 it was held that an order for consolidation can be made in a proper case in exercise of the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Muhammad Fazal v. Mankumar Mahton3 it was held that when the power of consolidation is exercised under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the consent of parties is not necessary. In c. R-P. No. 419 of 1955 dated 13-7-1956 this court had expressed the same view. In Nand kishore v. Ram Dev4 while dealing with the powers of Court under Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure for the consolidation of suits it was held that where the subject matter of two suits are identical and if both the suits are allowed to be tried separately and they are decreed, it would result in rendering contradictory judgments on the same subject matter, consolidation of such suits will be necessary for doing complete justice to the parties. The same view was expressed in Shantilal Khushaldas and Bros. , Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghuvirr. Painguinkar5 navin Pal Kaur v. Raja Ram6 and also Ved parkash v. Amar Singh7. 1. AIR 1960 A. P. 75. 2. 17 Cal. W. N. 526. 3. AIR 1922 Patna 566. 4. 2003 (1) ICC 78 . 5. 1995 (1) Civil Court Cases 195 (Bom. ). 6. 1997 (1) Civil Court Cases 19. 7. 1996 (1) Civil Court Cases 339. Painguinkar5 navin Pal Kaur v. Raja Ram6 and also Ved parkash v. Amar Singh7. 1. AIR 1960 A. P. 75. 2. 17 Cal. W. N. 526. 3. AIR 1922 Patna 566. 4. 2003 (1) ICC 78 . 5. 1995 (1) Civil Court Cases 195 (Bom. ). 6. 1997 (1) Civil Court Cases 19. 7. 1996 (1) Civil Court Cases 339. ( 8 ) IN view of the settled legal proposition, i am of the considered opinion that the power of the Court to order consolidation of suits clubbing of suits or joint trial of suits by exercising power under Section 151 of the code of Ci^vil Procedure cannot be in any wajr_doubted. But, however, when one of the parties are not agreeable for such a course, then the proper course will be to move a regular application explaining the facts and circumstances of the litigations which are sought to be consolidated or clubbed for being tried together. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and also taking into consideration that one suit already was heard and ripe for disposal and another suit is at the stage of recording evidence and also taking into consideration the undertaking of both the counsel before the trial court it will be just and convenient to make the following order: The Learned Senior Civil judge at Siddipet is hereby directed to try, (and dispose of) O. S. No. 4 of 2002 and o. S. No. 5 of 2002 on the file of the said Court independently and dispose of simultaneously, since, it will be just and equitable order in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.