Telangana High Court
CRP/4247/2015 of Kotha Venkateswarlu Vs Ganisetti Venkata Rajendra Prasad on 31 December 2015
A . RAMALINGESWARA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.4247 of 2015 Date: 31-12-2015 Between: Kotha Venkateswarlu .... Petitioner AND Ganisetti Venkata Rajendra Prasad and 13 others .... Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A . RAMALINGESWARA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.4247 of 2015 ORDER: The
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAOCivil Revision Petition No.4247 of 2015Date: 31-12-2015
Between:
Kotha Venkateswarlu
.... Petitioner
AND
Ganisetti Venkata Rajendra Prasad and13 others
.... Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAOCivil Revision Petition No.4247 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The 2[nd] defendant in O.S.No.145 of 2004 on the file of IVAdditional District Judge, Tanuku is the petitioner herein. The saidsuit was filed for cancellation of sale deeds dated 06-06-1991 and 07-06-1991 in respect of A-schedule property and sale deed dated13-09-1999 in respect of B-schedule property in favour of the 2[nd]defendant, who is petitioner herein. He filed I.A.No.222 of 2013 toconsolidate the said suit with O.S.No.146 of 2009 filed by somethird party for specific performance of the agreement of saleexecuted by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.145 of 2004 wherein thepetitioner was also impleaded. The trial Court dismissed the saidapplication on 18-02-2015 with the following observations:
“........In cases where parties are common and matteris absolutely similar, to avoid multiplicity of suits and toeliminate chances of conflicting decisions on the same pointconsolidation of two or more suits can be ordered. Sufficientsimilarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decisionand the purpose is to relieve to adduce similar documentaryand oral evidence twice over in two suits at two differenttrials. Since issues are different, there may be no similarevidence. Only one common point is agreement of saleexecuted relating to part of property in O.S.145/04. AlreadyO.S.145/04 is in comprehensive nature and differentproperties are covered in that suit i.e. one property which issituated at Tanuku jurisdiction and other property which issituated at Rajole of East Godavari District. This Court is ofthe considered view that issues are altogether different andissues were also framed very comprehensively. In suchcircumstances, if both the suits are consolidated clearevidence relating to main aspects may not be possible due tothe comprehensiveness. On the other hand, this court cameto conclusion that conducting simultaneous trial in both thecases is alternative and opt relief than the consolidation....”
This Court noticed that O.S.No.145 of 2004 is acomprehensive suit seeking cancellation of three sale deeds andfor recovery of possession after ejecting the 1[st] defendant in thesaid suit. O.S.No.146 of 2009 was filed by the third party againstthe petitioner herein/2[nd] defendant in O.S.No.145 of 2004. Therelief in both the suits is different. There is no common groundexcept commonality of some parties in both the suits. The evidencecannot be recorded in one suit. Both the suits should goindependently. In the circumstances, the order dated 18-02-2015 inI.A.No.222 of 2013 in O.S.No.145 of 2004 does not warrant anyinterference and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to bedismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneouspetitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 31-12-2015
Ksn