Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nekkanti Ravi Kumar vs M.Sivarama Seshireddy on 15 February, 2021
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1115 of 2020
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against
the Order and decree, dated 10.3.2020 passed in I.A.No.1544 of
2019 in O.S.No.520 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal
District Judge, Guntur.
2. The petitioner filed the above said I.A., under Section 151
Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to Club
O.S.No.522 of 2014 and O.S.No.524 of 2014 with O.S.No.520 of
2014 and conduct common trial and also record evidence in
O.S.No.520 of 2014.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the defendant
in O.S.No.520 of 2014. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs
filed the above suit for Specific Performance of agreement of sale
dated 14.3.2020 said to have been executed by the petitioner
/defendant. Similarly, plaintiffs filled two other suits against the
other brothers of the petitioner herein. Altogether, plaintiffs filed
three suits and in all the three suits, plaintiffs are one and the
same. So far as the defendants are concerned, they are different,
though they are brothers. After elaborate discussion, the learned
trial Judge passed the impugned order. The operative portion of
the impugned order is as follows :
1. Clubbing of suits i.e., O.S.No.522 of 2014, O.S.No.524 of
2020 with O.S.No.520 of 2020 is not possible
2. There will be simultaneous recording of evidence in all the
three suits
3. The evidence of plaintiffs in all the three suits will be
simultaneously recorded and after completion of evidence
of plaintiff side in all the three suits, evidence of defendant
side will received simultaneously.
4. On completion of evidence of defendant side in all the three
suits common arguments will be heard
5. After completion of arguments, Judgments will be
pronounced in all the three suits basing on the merits of
respective case depending on the convenience either jointly
or separately.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present
civil revision petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all three
suits, the defence is one and the same. It is his further contention
that all the three agreements have been executed on the same day
and there is similarity in all the three suits and requests this Court
to direct the learned Principal District Judge to record evidence in
one suit.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the relief in one suit is different from the relief
sought in the other suits. Hence, there are no valid grounds to
direct recording of evidence in one suit. He further contended that
all the three suits filed by the respondents are against different
properties and against different parties. As such, clubbing of all
the three suits is not possible and sought for dismissal of the
present revision.
8. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondents /
plaintiffs have transacted with the brothers, who are holding their
respective properties. The plaintiffs purchased properties from all
the three brothers under separate agreements of sale. Two suits
were filed seeking relief of Specific Performance. One suit is filed
for return of earnest money. All the three suits arising out of
separate transactions. Further, the defendants also purchased
their respective properties under three separate registered sale
deeds. Since the properties are separately described, reliefs are
different and as such, cause of action in all the three suits is
different. Merely because of enjoying the property commonly by
three brothers, it cannot be said that the evidence can be recorded
in one suit. After considering all these aspects, this Court is of the
considered view that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is
justifiable, reasonable and convenient to all the parties. As such,
there are no valid grounds warranting interference of this Court
with the impugned order.
9. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed as devoid of any merit and the order and decree, dated
10.3.2020 passed in I.A.No.1544 of 2019 in O.S.No.520 of 2014 on
the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur, is hereby
confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
15th Februray,2021.
RPD.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1115 of 2020
Dated : 15.02.2021
RPD.
