APHC010573282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3299]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3245/2024 Between:

Adapa Subash Chandra Bose ...PETITIONER AND Palisetti Kamakshi Devi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3245/2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. For the order proposed to be passed, notice to the respondents are dispensed with.

3. The petitioner is the defendant No.1 in OS.No.10 of 2022 filed by the respondent No.1 herein (plaintiff). Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are also the defendants in the said suit along with the present petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed OS.No.86 of 2017 for partition with respect to the plaint schedule property, in which all the present respondents are party defendants. The said suit was pending in the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. He submits that in the said suit, the present respondents have also filed written statement setting up the plea of Will in her favour. Respondent No.1 is the sister of the petitioner. He submits that during the pendency of OS.No.86 of 2017, respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.10 of 2022 for declaration with regard to the same plaint schedule property based on the said Will. He submits that the said suit is also pending in the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. He further submits that since the parties are same, property is same and the issue involved is also same in both the suits, the petitioner filed I.A.No.220 of 2022 in OS.No.10 of 2022, under Section 10 of CPC to stay the proceedings of subsequent suit of OS.No.10 of 2022. The said application has been rejected on the ground that though the parties and subject matter in both the suits are same but substantial question of title over the property and its declaration is sought in OS.No.10 of 2022 which is not sought in OS.No.86 of 2017 though the issue with regard to title of plaintiff in OS.No.10 of 2022 is framed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the property in both the suits is same, the parties are same and issue involved is also same, in view of Section 10 of CPC proceedings of subsequent suit of OS.No.10 of 2022 deserves to be stayed. Therefore, the order under challenge suffers from illegality.

6. I have considered the aforesaid submission. From the impugned judgment also, it is evident that the parties in both the suits are same, the property is same. From the submissions advanced as also from the judgment, it is also evident that substantially the issue involved is the same, as in partition suit, the claim of the respondent is based on the Will and in OS.No.10 of 2022, the suit for declaration, her case for such declaration is also on the same Will. Consequently, in the view of this Court, instead of asking for stay of O.S.NO.10 of 2022 it would have been appropriate to ask for joint trial by consolidating both the suits.

7. In Chittivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent

powers of the Court flowing from Section 151 of the CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the Civil Court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. It was also observed that complete or even substantial and sufficient similarit