Haresh Bhavani vs Devalraju Lakshmi Narasimha Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 5242 AP

                             1



      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                  Tr.C.M.P.NO.288 of 2019

O R D E R:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to

transfer the suit in O.S.No.134 of 2017 on the file of the I

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada to the VII Addl. District

Judge, Vijayawada to try along with O.S.No.107 of 2018.

2) Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Ch. Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the

Respondent. Perused the record.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.107 of 2018 on the file

of the VII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, for specific

performance whereas the respondent herein filed a suit in

O.S.No.134 of 2017 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil

Judge, Vijayawada, for recovery of possession of the plaint

schedule property.

4) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.134 of 2017 is ground

and 1st floor portions whereas the plaint schedule property in

O.S.No.107 of 2018 is the ground and 1st & 2nd floors of the

building bearing D.No.14-12-8, Atchutharamaiah Street,

Hanumanpet of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and in both

the suits parties are one and the same. The witnesses are to

be examined in both the suits are one and the same. If the

two suits are tried separately by different courts, there is every

chance or likelihood of conflict of judicial opinion in the two

matters.

5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner earlier filed Tr.C.M.P.No.13 of 2019 before the

Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, seeking to

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.134 of 2017 from the file of I

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and transfer to the

file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for trial along

with the suit in O.S.No.107 of 2018 and the same was

dismissed by order, dated 10.12.2019. Therefore, it is just and

essential that both the suits may be tried together in one Court

in order to avoid the conflicting judgments.

6) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the suit in O.S.No.134 of 2017 is filed for the relief of eviction,

which is pending on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada, but not on the file of II Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Vijayawada. The plaint schedule filed in O.S.No.134 of

2017 is different from the plaint schedule in O.S.No.107 of

2018. Since, the reliefs sought in both suits are different, the

evidence required to be let in these two suits is different and

there are no common issues. Therefore, there is no question of

conflicting judicial opinion, if both suits are tried separately.

Therefore, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the present

Civil Revision Petition.

7) Having heard both the learned counsel and upon

perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted

fact that the suit in O.S.No.134 of 2017 is filed by the

respondent against the petitioner for eviction and for damages

at Rs.90,000/- per month. The suit in O.S.No.107 of 2018 is

filed by the petitioner against the respondent for the relief of

specific performance of contract of sale. It appears that prior

to offering the sale of 213 sq. yards of site by the respondent

to the petitioner, admittedly the petitioner is lessor of the

schedule property. The relationship in between the petitioner

and respondent as owner and lessor is admitted by the

petitioner in the petition averments.

8) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on

decisions in (1) Gunda Rajanna vs. P. Annapurna1 and (2)

2004(3) A.P.L.J. 40 (H.C)

Kvaerner Cementation India Limited, Mumbai vs. Bharat

Heavy Plate and Vessels Limited, Visakhapatnam 2 to

substantiate his contention. This Court anxiously has gone

through the said decisions. This Court is fully agreeing with

the proposition of law laid down in the said decisions. But the

facts are clearly distinguishable in the present case.

9) As such, in our considered opinion, it is clear that

there is no scope of conflicting decisions since the reliefs

claimed by the parties in two suits are totally different as the

respondent inducted the petitioner as licensee in the ground

and first floor of schedule property only, but not the entire

property which is shown as schedule property by the petitioner

herein in O.S.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional

District Judge, Vijayawada. It is also clear that it is not the

contention of the petitioner that the respondent executed

possessory agreement of sale in his favour in respect of the

schedule property.

10) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

there are no merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner

in the present Civil Revision Petition and it is liable to be

dismissed.

(2001) 6 ALD 272

11) Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition

is dismissed.

12) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt. 17.08.2022.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

Tr.C.M.P.No.288 of 2019

Dt. 17.08.2022

PGR