Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 371 (AP)

Busipati Chandrasekhar v. Narla Venkataiah

2019-12-11

M.GANGA RAO

body2019
ORDER : M. Ganga Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit OS No. 129 of 2011, filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 9.4.2019 in IA No. 42 of 2019 in OS No. 129 of 2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to dispose of both the suits OS No. 129 of 2011 and OS No. 21 of 2011 simultaneously. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed above suit OS No. 129 of 2011 for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction against the respondents. The petitioner filed IA No. 206 of 2018 in the above suit to implead one P.V. Nagendra Prasad, who is plaintiff in OS 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, IA No. 106 of 2018 was dismissed. The petitioner preferred CRP No. 3976 of 2018 before this Court against the order in IA 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 OS No. 129 of 2011 and OS 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 OS No. 21 of 2011 is filed by one P.V. Nagendra Prasad against the 2nd defendant in the suit OS 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 OS No. 129 of 2011 against the respondents in respect of Plot No. 107 admeasuring Ac. The petitioners filed OS 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 OS No. 21 of 2011 is coming for submitting arguments, as the entire evidence was adduced by both parties. Whereas OS No. 129 of 2011 is coming for cross-examination of PW 1, the stages of both the suits are entirely different. In OS 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. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel and having perused the record, this Court found that the suit OS No. 129 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction against the respondents and the suit OS No. 21 of 2011 is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale, both the suits could not be clubbed together even though the schedule of the properties are one and the same and claims are different and distinct. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to give a liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the third party P.V. Nagendra Prasad, who is plaintiff in OS No. 21 of 2011 as 3rd defendant in OS No. 129 of 2011. She placed reliance in Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry and others, 2007 (I) ALD 51 (SC) : AIR 2007 SC 215 , wherein the Supreme Court held that in different circumstances the second petition is maintainable to implead third party to contend that the revision petition is entitled to file a second petition for impleadment of third party. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel, in the interest of justice, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the above civil revision petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition if so advised under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel, in the interest of justice, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the above civil revision petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition if so advised under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. If such application is filed by the petitioner, the Trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits, without reference to the earlier order passed in IA No. 106 of 2018 and the observations made by this Court in CRP No. 3976 of 2018. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.