Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 529 (AP)

Gandlur Prasanna Kumar v. Palem Pavan Kumar Reddy

2020-08-13

B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT B.Krishna Mohan, J. - This civil revision petition arises against the order, dated 09.12.2019, in T.O.P.No.19 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Judge's Court, Kadapa, dismissing the prayer for withdrawal and transfer of O.S.No.341 of 2018 pending on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, to the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, for disposal along with OS.No.318 of 2017 pending on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. Fourth respondent is stated to be not a necessary party. 3. The petitioner herein filed T.O.P.No.19 of 2019 before the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking withdrawal and transfer of the suit in OS.No.341 of 2018 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, to the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, before which Court the suit in OS.No.318 of 2017 is pending. 4. The petitioner along with another (4th respondent herein) as second plaintiff and the first plaintiff respectively filed OS.No.318 of 2017 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant by declaring the sale deed of the defendant, dated 04.07.2015, as null and void. The suit is filed on 13.09.2017 and the same is pending for trial. Mr. Palem Pavan Kumar Reddy (1st respondent herein) is the sole defendant in OS.No.318 of 2017. Whereas the purchasers of the said plaint schedule properties from the defendant in OS.No.318 of 2017 has filed another suit in OS.No.341 of 2018 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, seeking eviction of the defendants therein, who are plaintiffs in the suit in OS.No.318 of 2017, with respect to the same schedule properties. The said suit is also pending for trial before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa. The said suit is also pending for trial before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa. While so, one of the plaintiffs in OS.No.318 of 2017 filed this T.O.P.No.19 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Kadapa, seeking withdrawal and transfer of the suit in OS.No.341 of 2018 pending on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, to the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, and club the case in OS.No.318 of 2017 which is pending on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, as the plaint schedule properties in both the suits are one and the same. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge dismissed the T.O.P vide order, dated 09.12.2019, holding that the cause of action in both the suits is not one and the same and the reliefs are also different. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in T.O.P.No.19 of 2019 has come before this Court by way of this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the prayers in the two suits pending before two different Courts below are different, the plaint schedule properties in both the suits are one and the same. It is just and proper if both the cases are tried together or simultaneously by the same Court, there will not be any conflict of judgments and the trial Court will have a comprehensive approach with respect to the cause pending between the parties in respect of both the matters. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as observed by the learned District Judge in the order under revision the suits are for different reliefs and one is pending in the higher Court viz., Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court and the other suit is pending before the inferior Court viz., Junior Civil Judge's Court and no prejudice would be caused if both the matters are dealt by different Courts with competent jurisdiction. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is to be seen that admittedly the plaint schedule properties in both the suits are one and the same. The petitioner herein along with another filed the suit in OS.No.318 of 2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, for declaration of title and permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs against the defendant. The said suit is pending for trial. The petitioner herein along with another filed the suit in OS.No.318 of 2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, for declaration of title and permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs against the defendant. The said suit is pending for trial. The respondents 2 & 3 herein claiming ownership over the same schedule properties inter alia stating that they purchased the plaint schedule properties from the defendant in OS.No.318 of 2017, filed O.S.No.341 of 2018 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, for recovery of possession by way of eviction of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.318 of 2017. 8. In view of these facts and circumstances, since all the parties are claiming rights against the same plaint schedule properties of two different suits pending before two different Courts, it is just and proper to have either a common trial or to have a trial and disposal of the cases simultaneously by the same Court to meet the ends of justice and avoid conflict of judgments. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the reasoning adopted by the learned Principal District Judge is not sustainable and as such the order, dated 09.12.2019, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, in T.O.P.No.19 of 2019 is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 09.12.2019, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, in T.O.P.No.19 of 2019. As a sequel, O.S.No.341 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, is withdrawn from the file of the said Court and it is transferred to the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, for joint or simultaneous hearing of the said suit with O.S.No.318 of 2017 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Judge's Court, Kadapa, and both the suits shall be disposed of together by the transferee Court, as per law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.