Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 754 (AP)

Burma Gnaneshwar Rao v. E. Rajamani

2003-06-16

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) TR. C. M. P. NO. 387 of 2001 is filed praying for transfer of O. S. No. 2 of 1995 on the file of junior Civil Judge, Medchal to the II additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district to be tried along with O. S. No. 172 of 2000 pending on the file of the said Court for the purpose of joint trial and for the purpose of disposal of common judgment in the interest of justice. ( 3 ) TR. C. M. P. NO. 118 of 2002 is filed praying for transfer of O. S. No. 1 of 1995 on the file of junior Civil Judge, Medchal to the II additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district to be tried along with O. S. No. 172 of 2000 pending on the file of the said Court for the purpose of joint trial and for the purpose of disposal of common judgment in the interest of justice. It is stated that the subject matter in O. S. No. 2 of 1995 on the file of junior Civil Judge, Medchal and in O. S. No. 172 of 2000 on the file of II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District is one and the same and the source of title in both the suits is common and the documents relied upon by the respective parties are almost common for both the suits besides the common question of law and fact which arises for consideration for adjudication of the said suits. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent in Tr. C. M. P. No. 387 of 2001 filed a counter affidavit in detail and it was specifically pleaded that an attempt was made to club the suits and the same was dismissed. It was also stated that on a reading of the plaints in O. S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1995 it is clear that cause of action and the reliefs sought are different, separate and distinct and he is not a party to O. S. No. 172 of 2000 and hence, the transfer application itself is not maintainable. It is also stated that no doubt there is relationship between the parties, but in the year 1954-55 the parties effected partition and since then the parties are in possession of their respective shares. In para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of tr. It is also stated that no doubt there is relationship between the parties, but in the year 1954-55 the parties effected partition and since then the parties are in possession of their respective shares. In para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of tr. C. M. P. No. 118 of 2002 it was stated that the subject matter of suit-O. S. No. 1 of 1995 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal and the subject matter of suit-O. S. No. 172 of 2000 on the file of II Additional District judge, Ranga Reddy District though not one and the same but the source of title alleged by both the parties is common and documents relied upon by the parties are also common and common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the said suits and hence transfer was prayed. Respondent No. 1 in tr. CM. P. No. 118 of 2002 filed a counter- affidavit in detail and taken specific stand that the respondents in both the suits are distinct and separate and he does not know as who had filed the suit-O. S. No. 172 of 2000 and he is not a party to the said suit. Further, specific stand was taken that his title is independent and it has nothing to do with the title of the petitioners. ( 5 ) SRI B. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioners in tr. CMPs. had submitted that as the source of title is the same and documents are common, and these documents may have to be considered in these suits, in the event of separate Courts deciding these matters, there may be likelihood of conflicting judgments. Learned Counsel also submitted that even if this Court is not inclined to order joint trial after ordering transfer, atleast the suits may be transferred as prayed for and the learned ii Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district may be directed to decide all these matters independently by recording evidence in these different suits separately. Learned Counsel also submitted that though the contesting respondent is not a party, in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in all fairness the other side for his convenience should have conceded for ordering transfer of suits as prayed for. Learned Counsel also submitted that though the contesting respondent is not a party, in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in all fairness the other side for his convenience should have conceded for ordering transfer of suits as prayed for. ( 6 ) SRI P. Venugopal, learned Counsel representing the contesting respondent had raised an objection and had stated that this respondent is claiming independent title and he is not a party to the other litigation and in fact, an attempt was made for clubbing of suits which was negatived and these transfer cmps. are thought of only with a view to delay the proceedings and nothing more and no case is made out to order the transfer of suits as prayed for by the petitioners. ( 7 ) HEARD both sides and also perused the material available on record. ( 8 ) ORDER 14 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil procedure deals with materials from which issues may be framed and it is hereby extracted. 3. Materials from which issues may be framed:- The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:- (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. Order 14 Rule 3 (c) of the Code of Civil procedure specifically refers to the contents of documents produced by either party. This is in relation to settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. This is the only ground, which has been urged with seriousness praying for transfer of suits. I had given my anxious consideration to the pleadings produced before me in all the suits. O. S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1995 on the file of Junior Civil judge, Medchal are the suits claiming for perpetual injunction.-O. S. No. 172 of 2000 on the file of II Additional District Judge, ranga Reddy District is a suit praying for partition, correction of Pahanies and also for the relief that the sale deed bearing documents No. 1392/1970 dated 07-12-1970 registered before Sub-Registrar office, medchal be declared as illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs. A cursory glance of these litigations and also contents of the plaints would go to show that the contesting party is not a party to O. S. No. 172 of 2000 on the file of II Additional District judge, Ranga Reddy concerned. In the light of specific stand taken by the contesting respondentmerely on the ground that certain documents in all the suits may be common, i do not think that it can be a ground for the purpose of ordering transfer, by exercising power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil procedure, I am also unable to agree with the contention. That there may be conflicting judgments if the respective suits are proceeded with in the concerned Courts. Hence, I do not see any reason to order the transfer CMPs. as prayed for by the petitioners. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Transfer CMPs. are dismissed. No order as to costs.