The court upheld the trial court's decision to consolidate two suits involving the same property, emphasizing the necessity to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

Heard Sri Saranu Phani Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner Smt Ghousia Sulthana is the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.47 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein namely P. Yungandhar for a decree of specific performance of contract to execute sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale dated 15.04.2010, alleging its execution by the 3rd defendant of the said suit Smt Ghousia Sulthana as also the 1st defendant, namely, Rahamatulla Shariff. The 3rd defendant Smt.Ghousia Sulthana of O.S.No.47 of 2016 had previously filed O.S.No.42 of 2016 against the three defendants, including Sri Rahimtulla Sharif (2nd defendant in her suit) for declaration in her favour that, she was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, in terms of the alleged registered gift settlement deed 08.08.2008 along with some other prayers.

3. The plaintiff P. Yugandhar in O.S.No.47 of 2016 filed I.A.No.1315 of 2022 to consolidate both the suits i.e., O.S.No.42 of 2016 and O.S.No.47 of 2016, both pending in the same Court for joint trial. The said application has been allowed by order dated 20.06.2024. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff of O.S.No.42 of 2016 (3rd defendant of O.S.No.47 of 2016) Smt Ghousia Sulthana has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties in both the suits are not the same. The plaintiffs of O.S.No.47 of 2016, P. Yungandhar is not party in O.S.No.42 of 2016. He submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed that the parties in both the suits are same. Consequently, his submission is that both the suits could not be consolidated for trial. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. He placed reliance in the case of A. Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju v. R. Naga Venkata Vijayalakshmi, 2022 (5) ALT 698 to contend that each suit is to be tried separately, is the normal mode provided under the law.

5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

6. On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property in both the suits is the same. So, it is not in dispute that the property in both the suits is the same.

7. The contention that requires consideration is if the parties of both the suit are same or not.

8. So far as the said contention with respect to the parties not being the same is concerned, the suit O.S.No.47 of 2016 has been filed by the plaintiff, namely, P. Yugandhar, based on the alleged agreement to sell said to have been executed by Smt Ghousia Sulthana the plaintiff of O.S.No.42 of 2016 (and 3rd defendant in O.S.No.47 of 2016) as also the 2nd defendant of O.S.No.47 of 2016, who is also the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.42 of 2016. Consequently, it cannot be said that the parties in both the suits are not the same.

9. There is another aspect, the plaintiff of O.S.No.47 of 2016 is in fact claiming for a specific performance of contract, including, against the plaintiff of O.S.No.42 of 2016, based on agreement of sale. The property of both the suits is the same. In O.S.No.47 the plaintiff thereof is seeking specific performance of contract with respect to that property and inter alia against the plaintiff of O.S.No.42 of 2016. Whereas the plaintiff of O.S.No.42 of 2016 who is the one of the defendants as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.47 of 2016, in her suit is seeking a declaration that she is the exclusive owner of the suit property. Any declaration in O.S.No.42 of 2016 in which the plaintiff of O.S.No.47 of 2016 has not been impleaded, may also possibly adversely affect his rights to get a specific performance in his O.S.No.47 of 2016 with respect to the same property against the defendants, other than the defendant No.3 of O.S.No.47 of 2016. Consequently the consolidation of