CRP/1133/2010 of Mophammed Moinuddin Vs Mohammed Hasmath Ali on 28 December 2012

COMMON ORDER: -

These two revision petitions arise out of cross suits between thesame parties and the issue decided in both suits, which is subject matterof these two revisions, is common.

2. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1133 of 2010 herein is the plaintiffin O.S No.153 of 2007 on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad. Similarly, O.S No.387 of 2007 pending on the file ofsame Court was instituted by one Kaleemunnisa against the petitionerherein, which is subject matter of C.R.P.No.1095 of 2010.

3. In both the said suits, it appears pleadings are complete andaccording to the petitioner, as there are crucial admissions of therespondent in both the revision petitions in the respective suits. Thepetitioner, therefore, filed applications under Order X Rule 1 and OrderXII Rule 6 of C.P.C requesting the Court to ascertain the admissions ofthe respondent herein in the respective suits and based on that passjudgment on admissions. The said applications filed in the respectivesuits were contested, and the court below under the impugned separateorders with identical reason has dismissed the same by coming to a conclusion that the alleged admissions do not admit the entire claim ofthe petition. Hence both the said orders are questioned in this revision.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has demonstratedthe alleged admissions and contends that the decree in terms of theadmissions under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. ought to have been passedby the trial court.

5. Respondent in both the C.R.Ps though served, nobody appearson behalf of the respondent. However, it is evident that the suits of2007 are still pending and ripe for trial before the trial court. Subjectmatter of both the suits appear to be a portion of premises No.23-1-1108, Punchmohallah, Moghalpura, Hyderabad wherein the respondentis claiming relief of possession in the suit, whereas petitioner is claimingrelief of declaration and consequential injunction in his suit. It is statedby the learned counsel that there is a marginal difference in theschedule attached in both the suits, but the basic subject matter beencommon, the suits can be expeditiously disposed of as the petitionerhas already filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination.

6. The applications of the petitioners in each of these cases is of2007 and they were decided in November, 2009. Three more yearshave now been passed by and the suit is now ripe for trial. Theallegation of the petitioner as to admissions of the respondent, isdisputed and at this distance of time when already five years have goneby from the date of institution of the suit, in my view, the interest ofjustice would be better served by taking up and deciding the suit itselfon merits by conducting the trial, rather than taking up theseinterlocutory applications, which are contested. Since the affidavit inlieu of chief examination is already filed by the petitioner, it would bejust and proper to direct the trial court to take up and complete the trial inO.S.Nos.387 and 153 of 2007 pending on its file as expeditiously aspossible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. The trial court shall dispose of the suit aftercompletion of the trial in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations on record.

7. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, stands disposedof. Office to communicate copy of the order to the trial court within aweek. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

28.12.2012lmv/knl

_____________________________

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1095 and 1133 of 2010

lmv/knl

28.12.2012