Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1856
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Karnati Narayana – Appellant
Versus
Modugu Sukhender Reddy – Respondent
CRP/4144/2024
The court ruled that suits pending in different courts are independent and should not be clubbed unless sufficient cause is shown, emphasizing that convenience alone is not a valid reason.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 24 - Transfer of suits - The petitioner sought to club two original suits pending in different courts to avoid conflicting findings. The court found no sufficient cause for clubbing as the suits were independent and not identical. (Paras 3, 15, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that mere convenience does not justify clubbing of suits unless a sufficient cause is shown. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns agricultural land and filed a suit for injunction against the respondents who attempted to interfere with his operations. The respondents filed a counter-suit claiming ownership of adjacent land.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the transfer petition, noting that both suits could proceed independently without prejudice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suits should be clubbed for trial to avoid conflicting decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the suits were independent and did not warrant clubbing, emphasizing that convenience alone is insufficient for such a request.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dt.24.06.2024, in Tr.O.P.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge’s Court at Nalgonda.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice on the respondents, there is no representation on their behalf either in-person or through counsel.
3. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in the aforesaid Transfer Original Petition (TrOP) filed under Section 24 of the CPC praying the Court below to club two original suits vide OS.No.282 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Excise Court at Nalgonda, and O.S.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Nalgonda, and transfer both the suits to one of the Courts for trial and disposal in order to avoid conflicting findings.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.5.17 gts in survey No.44/1 situated at Gattuppal Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District, which he purchased from one M.Alwal Reddy, under a registered sale deed, dt.26.11.2004; that in the said land, he had undertaken cultivation and raised 550 orange trees by spending huge amounts; that the respondents herein by mustering strength with the help of gundas and anti-social elements have tried to interfere with the agricultural/horticultural operations of the petitioner with malafide intention tried to usurp the suit schedule property to an extent of Acs.2.00 gts from the northern side, which the petitioner could thwart; that finding it difficult to protect his possession and enjoyment in respect of the aforementioned property, he had filed a suit vide OS.No.282 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Excise Court at Nalgonda, against the respondents herein for grant of perpetual injunction simpliciter; and that trial in the said suit had commenced.
5. Petitioner further contends that while the suit filed by him is pending consideration, the 2nd respondent herein, who is 2nd defendant in the suit filed him, as a counter blast, had filed another suit vide O.S.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda for grant of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.29 gts in survey No.44/A3, situated at Ghattuppal Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District.
6. Petitioner further contends that since, the suit filed by him and the suit filed by the 2nd respondent herein are pending consideration before two different Courts, he had filed the underlying TrOP for transferring both the suits to one of the Courts to avoid conflicting decisions; that the Court below without considering the said TrOP in its correct perspective had dismissed the same erroneously; and thus, seeks for setting aside the order in TrOP and for clubbing both the suits and to transfer the same to either of the Courts, for consideration.
7. I have taken note of the above submissions made.
8. It is to be noted that the 2nd respondent herein had filed the suit vide O.S.No.18 of 2021 against the petitioner herein claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2.29 gts in survey No.44/A3 of the Gattuppal village, where at the agricultural property of the revision petitioner i.e., agricultural land admeasuring Acs.5.17 gts in survey No.44/1 is also situated; that the respondent No.2 had acquired the said land from his father, 1st respondent herein, under a Gift Settlement Deed, dt.25.10.2017; that the said property is ancestral in nature; and that upon the 1st respondent executing the gift settlement deed in his favour, the said land was mutated on to his name in revenue records by issuing Electronic Digital Pattadar Pass Book with Khata No.1750.
9. The 2nd respondent in the aforesaid suit had further claimed that he had taken up agricultural activities in the said land and raised rain fed crops as well as commercial
