Yannabathina Sankaramma, v. Simbothu Venkatasubbaiah

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5184 OF 2017 ORDER:

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff having been aggrieved of the order, dated 07.11.2016, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, passed in I.A.No.628 of 2016 in O.S.No.184 of 2011, rejecting the request of the petitioner to try jointly and dispose of O.S.Nos.184 of 2011 and 195 of 2011 pending on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur. 2.

At the stage of admission, I have heard the submissions of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - plaintiff.

3.

The case of the petitioner - plaintiff and the submissions on her behalf are as follows:

"The plaintiff brought O.S.No.184 of 2011 against three defendants, namely, Simbothu Venkatasubbaiah, Beeda Ravichandra and Beeda Giridhar, for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.3-63 cents of land in Survey No.235/4 situated at Batrakagollu Village, Allur Mandal, more-fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendants in the said suit are resisting the said suit. The plaintiff also filed O.S.No.195 of 2011 against three defendants, namely, Dodla Vinay Kumar Reddy, Dodla Vidyadhar Reddy and Peyyala China Kasaiah, for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the very same land. As the subject matter in the two suits filed by the

same plaintiff is one and the same and as the pleadings of the plaintiff in both the suits are also the same and since the two suits are pending on the file of same Court, the plaintiff filed the above application requesting the Court below to conduct trial in both the suits jointly and record common evidence and dispose of both the suits by a common judgment. However, by the order impugned, the trial Court rejected the request of the plaintiff as the parties to the suits are different and as one of the suits is for specific performance and the other suit is for perpetual injunction, though, in respect of the same subject matter. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff is before this Court."

4.

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff submits that the two suits relate to the same subject property; that the case of plaintiff in both the suits is one and the same; that the oral and documentary evidence, which the plaintiff is proposing to adduce in both the suits, is one and the same and that it would be difficult for the plaintiff to file the original documents in both the suits and therefore, it is just and fair to order joint trial and to direct the trial Court to dispose of both the suits together and that such a course would also help the parties in both the suits in avoiding conflicting findings.

5.

I have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions. Though, the subject matter in both the suits is one and the same, however, the defendants in both the suits are different and their defences are also different and are not common. In that view of the matter, if joint trial is ordered, the defendants in one suit will be unnecessarily subjected to cross-examination on

matters, which are not relevant to their defence in the suit to which they are parties and vice versa. However, if simultaneous trial is conducted, no prejudice would be caused, more particularly, if the trial Court is directed to dispose of both the suits by delivering separate judgments in both the suits on the same day.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff while submitting that the trial Court is not permitting the plaintiff to mark the original documents in the specific performance suit and the photocopies of the said documents in the suit for perpetual injunction seeks appropriate directions in that regard. 7.

Having regard to the facts & submissions and the reasons assigned supra, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions. 8.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court, however, directing the trial Court to conduct simultaneous trials in both the suits by permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to mark the original documents in the suit for specific performance in the first instance and certified copies thereof in the suit for perpetual injunction, without insisting for production of originals in the latter suit and accordingly dispose of both the suits simultaneously by delivering separate judgments on one and the same day.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J October 26, 2017 MD