Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 762 (TS)

Ceelam Bhupal Reddy v. S. Andalamma

2025-06-09

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. The Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 27.04.2023 in Tr.O.P.No.7 of 2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. Heard Sri G. Thirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. 3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 8 are defendants in O.S.No.280 of 2010. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.8 and 9 are defendants in O.S.No.812 of 2020. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.280 of 2010 against respondent Nos. 1 to 8 for specific performance of agreement sale dated 02.07.2007 and for cancellation of Agreement of sale cum G.P.A. bearing No. 791 of 2010, dated 24.02.2010, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.7-00 acres in Sy.No.39/1, and admeasuring Ac.8-33 gts in Sy.No.42 total admeasuring Ac.15-33 guntas, situated in Channaram Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein filed suit in O.S.No.812 of 2020, which is re-numbered as O.S.No.518 of 2021, against respondent Nos. 8 and 9 for direction to the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the same property, which is subject matter of O.S.No.280 of 2010. 5. Pending adjudication of the above suit, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein filed Tr.O.P.No.7 of 2022 before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District to transfer O.S.No.518 of 2021 to the Court of XVII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, to be tried along with O.S.No.280 of 2010. 6. In transfer petition, it is averred that documents being relied upon by the parties in both the cases are one and the same and the schedule property and issues in both the suits are also one and the same. Therefore, it is proper and necessary that both the suits be tried by the same Court to avoid possibility of passing conflicting decisions which may lead to multiplicity of litigations. 7. Therefore, it is proper and necessary that both the suits be tried by the same Court to avoid possibility of passing conflicting decisions which may lead to multiplicity of litigations. 7. Petitioner herein (respondent No.3 in Tr.O.P) filed counter resisting application and contended that he filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and for cancellation of Agreement of sale cum G.P.A. bearing document No.791 of 2010 dated 24.02.2010 and the suit is coming up for trial, whereas, suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 7 is posted for framing of issues; that pleadings and issues involved in both the suits are different, therefore, there is no possibility of passing conflicting judgments in both the suits and thus there is no need of clubbing both the suits and prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Tr.O.P) filed separate counters resisting application and contended that Tr.O.P. is not maintainable and that subject matter in both the suits are different and the cause of action and pleadings are also different, therefore, suits have to be dealt with independently and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. The District Court considering the pleadings and submissions put forth on behalf of the parties, allowed application vide impugned order dated 27.04.2023, with an observation that schedule property in both the suits is one and the same and the oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by both the parties may be overlapping and therefore, it is desirable that both the suits be disposed of by the same Court, instead of two different Courts, to avoid possibility of passing conflicting decisions, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner filed the suit in the year 2010 for specific performance of agreement of sale and cancellation of Agreement of sale cum G.P.A. bearing document No.791 of 2010 dated 24.02.2010 and the suit was coming up for trial, whereas, suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 7 is only at the stage of framing issues. Learned counsel further contended that parties in both the cases and as well as cause of action are different, however, District Court without properly considering the contentions put forth by the petitioner has erroneously allowed the application. Learned counsel further contended that parties in both the cases and as well as cause of action are different, however, District Court without properly considering the contentions put forth by the petitioner has erroneously allowed the application. Therefore, impugned order passed by the District Court is unsustainable and is liable to be interfered with and finally prayed to allow the revision. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 7 would submit that District Court has rightly allowed the application since schedule property in both the suits is one and the same and issues to be decided in both the suits are more or less the same. Learned counsel further contended that decision in one suit may affect other suit; therefore, District Court has rightly allowed the application so as to avoid conflicting decisions, which unnecessarily would lead to multiplicity of litigations. Learned counsel finally contended that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the District Court and prayed to dismiss the revision. 12. Perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.280 of 2010 for specific performance of agreement of sale and for cancellation of Agreement of sale cum G.P.A. bearing document No.791 of 2010 dated 24.02.2010, which was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 i.e., Siddam Setty Suryam. The legal heirs of the said Siddam Setty Suryam, who are defendant Nos.1 to 7 in O.S. No.280 of 2010, filed the suit in O.S.No.812 of 2020 for specific performance of Agreement of sale cum G.P.A., i.e., document bearing No.791 of 2010 dated 24.02.2010 which is subject matter of O.S.No.280 of 2010. Admittedly, schedule property in both the suits is one and the same and therefore, as rightly observed by the District Court both the suits are interconnected and further the issues to be decided and the evidence to be adduced would be more or less the same. Therefore, result of one suit will have bearing on the other suit. 13. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and this Court does not find any ground or reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Court and thus, revision is devoid of any merit. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 13. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and this Court does not find any ground or reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Court and thus, revision is devoid of any merit. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.