Telangana High Court
Ceelam Bhupal Reddy, vs S. Andalamma, on 9 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1556 OF 2023
ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated
27.04.2023 in Tr.O.P.No.7 of 2022 passed by the Principal District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard Sri G. Thirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7.
3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 8 are
defendants in O.S.No.280 of 2010. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are plaintiffs
and respondent Nos.8 and 9 are defendants in O.S.No.812 of 2020.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed suit in
O.S.No.280 of 2010 against respondent Nos. 1 to 8 for specific
performance of agreement sale dated 02.07.2007 and for cancellation of
Agreement of sale cum G.P.A. bearing No. 791 of 2010, dated
24.02.2010, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.7-00 acres in Sy.No.39/1,
and admeasuring Ac.8-33 gts in Sy.No.42 total admeasuring Ac.15-33
guntas, situated in Channaram Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule property').
Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein filed suit in O.S.No.812 of 2020, which is
re-numbered as O.S.No.518 of 2021, against respondent Nos. 8 and 9 for
LNA,J,
direction to the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of
the plaintiffs in respect of the same property, which is subject matter of
O.S.No.280 of 2010.
5. Pending adjudication of the above suit, respondent Nos. 1 to 7
herein filed Tr.O.P.No.7 of 2022 before the Principal District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District to transfer O.S.No.518 of 2021 to the Court of XVII
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, to be tried along with
O.S.No.280 of 2010.
6. In transfer petition, it is averred that documents being relied
upon by the parties in both the cases are one and the same and the
schedule property and issues in both the suits are also one and the
same. Therefore, it is proper and necessary that both the suits be tried
by the same Court to avoid possibility of passing conflicting decisions
which may lead to multiplicity of litigations.
7. Petitioner herein (respondent No.3 in Tr.O.P) filed counter
resisting application and contended that he filed suit for specific
performance of agreement of sale and for cancellation of Agreement of
sale cum G.P.A. bearing document No.791 of 2010 dated 24.02.2010 and
the suit is coming up for trial, whereas, suit filed by the respondent
Nos.1 to 7 is posted for framing of issues; that pleadings and issues
involved in both the suits are different, therefore, there is no possibility
LNA,J,
of passing conflicting judgments in both the suits and thus there is no
need of clubbing both the suits and prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Tr.O.P) filed
separate counters resisting application and contended that Tr.O.P. is not
maintainable and that subject matter in both the suits are different and
the cause of action and pleadings are also different, therefore, suits have
to be dealt with independently and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. The District Court considering the pleadings and submissions put
forth on behalf of the parties, allowed application vide impugned order
dated 27.04.2023, with an observation that schedule property in both the
suits is one and the same and the oral and documentary evidence to be
adduced by both the parties may be overlapping and therefore, it is
desirable that both the suits be disposed of by the same Court, instead
of two different Courts, to avoid possibility of passing conflicting
decisions, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner filed
the suit in the year 2010 for specific performance of agreement of sale
and cancellation of Agreement of sale cum G.P.A. bearing document
No.791 of 2010 dated 24.02.2010 and the suit was coming up for trial,
whereas, suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 7 is only at the stage of
framing issues. Learned counsel further contended that parties in both
LNA,J,
the cases and as well as cause of action are different, however, District
Court without properly considering the contentions put forth by the
petitioner has erroneously allowed the application. Therefore,
impugned order passed by the District Court is unsustainable and is
liable to be interfered with and finally prayed to allow the revision.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 7 would submit
that District Court has rightly allowed the application since schedule
property in both the suits is one and the same and issues to be decided
in both the suits are more or less the same. Learned counsel further
contended that decision in one suit may affect other suit; therefore,
District Court has rightly allowed the application so as to avoid
conflicting decisions, which unnecessarily would lead to multiplicity of
litigations. Learned counsel finally contended that no grounds are made
out to interfere with the order passed by the District Court and prayed
to dismiss the revision.
12. Perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioner herein
filed the suit in O.S.No.280 of 2010 for specific performance of
agreement of sale and for cancellation of Agreement of sale cum G.P.A.
bearing document No.791 of 2010 dated 24.02.2010, which was executed
by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 i.e., Siddam Setty
Suryam. The legal heirs of the said Siddam Setty Suryam, who are
LNA,J,
defendant Nos.1 to 7 in O.S. No.280 of 2010, filed the suit in O.S.No.812
of 2020 for specific performance of Agreement of sale cum G.P.A., i.e.,
document bearing No.791 of 2010 dated 24.02.2010 which is subject
matter of O.S.No.280 of 2010. Admittedly, schedule property in both
the suits is one and the same and therefore, as rightly observed by the
District Court both the suits are interconnected and further the issues to
be decided and the evidence to be adduced would be more or less the
same. Therefore, result of one suit will have bearing on the other suit.
13. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to
point any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and this
Court does not find any ground or reason to interfere with the order
passed by the District Court and thus, revision is devoid of any merit.
14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 09.06.2025
Tssb/dr
