[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Thota Gangadhar vs Mohd.Abdul Hakeem on 13 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4589 of 2025
Date: 13.04.2026
Between:
Thota Gangadhar.
.....Petitioner/Respondent No.12
AND
Mohd. Abdul Hakeem and 11 others.
....Respondents
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved
by the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Tr.O.P.No.9 of 2025 by
the Principal District Judge, Nizamabad, wherein the Transfer O.P.
filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and the suit vide
O.S.No.8 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge's Court, Armoor was withdrawn and transferred to the file of
Senior Civil Judge's Court, Armoor, to try along with O.S.No.17 of
2022.
2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides
and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.8 of
2023 is filed for partition and separate possession and declaration
in respect of the properties of late M.A. Jabbar, whereas O.S.No.17
of 2022 is filed by the petitioner herein for declaration of title and
perpetual injunction. It is contended that the nature of reliefs in
both the suits is distinct and independent, and therefore, the
question of clubbing both the suits does not arise. It is further
contended that respondent No.1 has not made out any valid
ground for transfer and that the learned Principal District Judge
erred in allowing the Transfer O.P. without proper appreciation of
the pleadings and issues involved in both the suits and therefore,
prayed this Court to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the
impugned order.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1
contended that both the suits pertain to the same subject property
and involve substantially the same parties. It is submitted that if
both the suits are tried separately by different Courts, there is
every possibility of conflicting findings being recorded. It is further
contended that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure
consistency in adjudication, the learned Principal District Judge
has rightly exercised the power under Section 24 of Code of Civil
Procedure (for short "CPC") in ordering transfer of the suit.
5. As seen from the material placed on record, O.S.No.8 of 2023
is filed by respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession
and for declaration of certain gift settlement deeds and registered
sale deeds as null and void, whereas O.S.No.17 of 2022 is filed by
the petitioner herein seeking declaration of title and perpetual
injunction against the respondent No.1 herein. The suit property in
O.S.No.17 of 2022 is part and parcel of the suit properties in
O.S.No.8 of 2023 and that the petitioner herein and respondent
No.1 herein are similar parties in both the suits. The pleadings in
both the suits disclose that adjudication in one suit will have a
direct bearing on the issues involved in the other suit. If both the
suits are tried separately, there is every likelihood of conflicting
judgments, resulting in multiplicity of litigation. The power under
Section 24 of CPC is discretionary and is required to be exercised
in the interest of justice. In the present case, the learned Principal
District Judge, upon considering the pleadings and circumstances,
has exercised such discretion to order joint trial. The reasoning
assigned for ordering joint trial to avoid conflicting decisions and to
ensure effective adjudication is just and proper. This Court does
not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order
warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. This Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 13.04.2026
scs
