Polagani Nageswara Rao, vs Chitarapu Uma Devi,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1382 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1382 AP
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Polagani Nageswara Rao, vs Chitarapu Uma Devi, on 4 March, 2021

Bench: B Krishna Mohan

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN


           CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1320 OF 2020


ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the Order in

Transfer O.P.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal

District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam dated 14.10.2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner herein filed the Transfer O.P. arraying the

respondent herein as the respondent in the said Transfer O.P.

4. The Transfer O.P. was filed by the petitioner herein under

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.215 of 2018 on the file of the Court of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam and transfer the same

to the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam wherein

A.S.No.205 of 2018 is pending for joint trial and disposal in

accordance with law. After hearing both the parties, the learned

Principal District Judge dismissed the Transfer O.P.No.20 of 2019

vide its Order dated 14.10.2020 observing as follows :

"Ergo, the relief sought for in both the suits is entirely different. The relief in O.S.No.152 of 2015 is for permanent injunction, but the suit in O.S.No.215 of 2015 was filed basing on the cause of action that after disposal of the suit in O.S.No.152 of 2015 on 09.04.2018, the petitioner/defendant on 03.06.2018 ~2~

high handedly removed the pipe and merged the bed and southern side of bund of the ABCD bode of the plaint schedule land into his land and that the suit was filed for declaration, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and for damages. So, the cause of action, the issues to be decided and the reliefs in both the suits are entirely different.

As seen from the record, it is self evident that against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.152 of 2015, dated 09.04.2018, an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.205 of 2018 pending on the file of IX Additional District Judge's Court, Machilipatnam. The appellate Court can only decide the appeal by rehearing the matter and scrutinize whether the decree was correct or not. However, the suit in O.S.No.215 of 2018 has to be decided by elaborate trial by the trail Court and the right of pleading evidence by both the parties has to be considered to decide the matter in issue in O.S.No.215 of 2018. Whereas, in A.S.No.205 of 2018, the trial need not be conducted. Thus, the transfer of O.S.No.215 of 2018 pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Machilipatnam to the file of IX Additional District Judge's Court, Machilipatnam for consolidation and for deciding the same along with A.S.No.205 of 2018, is totally unwarranted. There are no merits in the petition. As such, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered against the petitioner."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

parties are one and the same and the subject matter is one and

the same and as such the first appeal pending before the ~3~

IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam and the suit pending

before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam can be

clubbed together for a common hearing.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the nature of the relief sought in both the matters are

different and cause of actions for the above said matters are

different and there in no possibility of conflicting of Judgments

and Decrees and in the event of clubbing of these two matters the

parties would also lose right of an appeal and as such supported