Telangana High Court
Gundeti Venkatesh vs Sapavath Narayana on 17 April, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1183,
1187, 1189 and 1191 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issue arising out of the present batch of
Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being
disposed of by this Common Order.
2. Heard Mr.Paida Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners in all the Revisions.
3. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition
No.1176 of 2025 are discussed herein.
4. Civil Revision Petition No.1176 of 2025 is filed by the
petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assailing the Docket Order dated 05.03.2025 in O.S.No.335
of 2019 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short, 'the impugned
Order').
5. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 6 in the
above suit which was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs)
herein under Order 7 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 of Civil
::2:: PSK,J
crp_1176_2025&batch
Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for a perpetual injunction
against the petitioners herein.
6. Vide the impugned order, the request of the
petitioners (defendant Nos.1 to 6) for recording common
evidence in the two suits, viz., O.S.No.335 of 2019 and
O.S.No.1031 of 2019 (which stand transferred and seized
of by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District, at L.B. Nagar), has been rejected.
7. Aggrieved, the instant revision has been filed by the
petitioners (defendant Nos.1 to 6).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
since the properties in the above two suits are one and the
same, and the suit, viz., O.S.No.335 of 2019, is only for a
perpetual injunction and the other suit, viz., O.S.No.1031
of 2019 being a substantial suit seeking for declaration of
title and cancellation of sale deed, in order to avoid
duplicity of evidence and to also avoid conflicting interest
by deciding the two suits independently, a request for a
joint trial and deciding the two suits together has been
made by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 to 6) herein
before the Trial Court which stands rejected herein.
::3:: PSK,J
crp_1176_2025&batch
9. However, perusal of the record would go to show that
the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1031 of 2019 are defendants in
O.S.No.335 of 2019. The said two suits were earlier dealt
with by two separate Courts, and the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.335 of 2019 have subsequently filed Transfer
Original Petition No.388 of 2021 before the Principal
District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar praying
the Trial Court to club the two suits and taken up for
hearing by one Court so as to avoid conflicting interest.
Vide order dated 13.08.2021 in Transfer Original Petition
No.388 of 2021, the Court of the Principal District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District allowed the said transfer petition and
directed that the suit, viz., O.S.No.335 of 2019, be
transferred from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District, at Hayathnagar to the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar
and to be tried along with O.S.No.1031 of 2019 by clubbing
or separately, but to be disposed of simultaneously in
accordance with law. For ready reference, the relevant
portion is extracted hereunder, viz.,
"2. In the result, the petition is allowed transferring the
suit in O.S.No.335 of 2019 from the file of Junior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar to the Court of
::4:: PSK,J
crp_1176_2025&batch
III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.
Nagar to be tried along with O.S.No.1031 of 2019 pending
on its file, either by clubbing or separately, but to be
disposed of simultaneously in accordance with law. The
Junior Civil Judge at Hayathnagar is directed to transmit
the entire records in O.S.No.335 of 2019, duly indexed, to
the Court of III Additional District Judge, at L.B. Nagar
within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order."
10. From a plain reading of the aforesaid operative
portion of the order itself, it is clear that apart from a
direction for the above two suits to be taken up by the
same court simultaneously, there does not seem to be any
further direction so far as recording of a common evidence
to decide both the suits independently. Further, the Trial
Court had in very categorical terms directed the concerned
Court below to dispose of the two suits, either by clubbing
them or separately in accordance with law. However, it
was mandated that the two suits should be disposed of
simultaneously. This observation leaves it open for the
Trial Court to either club together and go in for a joint trial,
or to separately decide the two suits independently on its
own merits.
11. In the given factual backdrop, it would be difficult for
this Court to reach to the conclusion that the Trial Court
::5:: PSK,J
crp_1176_2025&batch
has committed any error of law or on fact while refusing to
go for a common evidence in both the suit, nor can the
impugned order be said to be perverse or contrary to the
rules and regulations governing the field particularly the
provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Further, this
Court finds that the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court stands fortified from the earlier order dated
13.08.2021 in Transfer Original Petition No.388 of 2021,
passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. Further, there is no material
produced before this Court by the petitioners to establish
that prejudice has been caused to the petitioners in the
event evidences in the two suits are recorded separately.
12. Nonetheless, it is made clear that even if the Trial
Court proceeds to record evidence independently in the two
suits, it is expected that the Trial Court shall decide the
two suits by way of a common order rather passing two
separate judgment and decrees so as to avoid further
inconvenience to either of the parties.
13. Therefore, the instant Civil Revision Petition being
devoid of any merit fails, and the same is accordingly
::6:: PSK,J
crp_1176_2025&batch
dismissed. Consequently, the batch of Revisions is also
dismissed. No costs.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date : 17.04.2025
Ndr
