ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.890 of 2017 in O.S.No.152 of 2015, dated 23.10.2017 passed by the III Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the 11th defendant and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the GPA holders to the sole plaintiff viz., Naraharisetty Surya Rao and respondent Nos. 3 to 10, 12 and 13 herein are the defendants. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.152 of 2015 for grant of permanent injunction on the file of III Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram (for short “the Court below”). During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed I.A.890 of 2017 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to order jointly in O.S.No.152 of 2015 and O.S.No.236 of 2014 and common evidence may be recorded in O.S.No.236 of 2014 as schedule property was one and the same in both the suits. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below allowed the said petition by ordering joint trial of both the suits. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.11.

3. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court below ought to have seen that the petitioner alone is a party in O.S.No.236 of 2014 and the reliefs in both the suits are different and distinct and also the parties are not common. He submits that in O.S.No.236 of 2014, there are other properties other than the suit property in O.S.No.152 of 2015. The learned counsel further submits that the Court below has failed to see that in view of the controversy and pleading of the parties involved in both the suits, recording of common evidence is not convenient and would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel requests this Court the impugned order may be set aside. In support of contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:

(i) In a case of Patan Noorun Bi Vs., Pandla Chinna Pullaiah1 wherein the High Court of A.P., held that:

“In such an event the Court below shall allow the application and call the petitioner to the witness box to make her available for cross-examination either by the petitioner or by the Government. As the earliest suit is of the year of 1995, I direct the Court below to dispose of both the suits within three months”.

(ii) In Boddula Rajesham Vs. Mahmooda Begum and Others2 wherein the High Court of A.P., held that:

“7. ..... Having regard to the fact that the parties to both the suits are common and suit schedule property is also one and the same, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to decide both the matters together to avoid not only conflicting decisions but also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. ...”

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.134 of 2014

1 2000 (1) ALT 8

2 2007 (2) ALT 416.

for grant of permanent injunction. After filing the said suit, the 3rd parties are claiming that they are original owners of the property, and filed a suit in O.S.No.236 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada for declaration of title and possession. Since two suits relate to the same property, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Transfer application for transfer of O.S.No.134 of 2014 before the Court below and got transferred to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, which was re-numbered as O.S.No.152 of 2015. Therefore, it is highly necessary to conduct joint trial.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(1) In a case of Rama Rajendram Vs. Rama Venkata Laxmi 3 wherein High Court of A.P., held that:

“(7)….. In t