COMMON ORDER:

Since the lis involved in both the revision petitions are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. CRP.No.570 and 571 of 2024 are filed challenging the orders dated 09.01.2024 passed in TROP.No.133 and 134 of 2023 respectively, with a prayer to allow the revision petitions by clubbing OS.No.1953 of 2019 and OS.No.2143 of 2019 with OS.No.976 of 2013 pending on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said TROPs. Aggrieved thereby, these revision petitions are filed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.976 of 2013 has filed a transfer petition to consolidate all suits related to the schedule property. The property in question is premises bearing House No.6-3-609/120/11, situated at Anand Nagar Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. The petitioner contends that along with his family and ancestors, he has been in possession of the subject property since several decades, which was gifted by the then landlord Md. Mirza and that they have been using the property for cattle business and that a cattle shed is still present on the property. The petitioner was made a party in O.S.No.1953 of 2019 and O.S.No.2143 of 2019 which are pending before different Courts in Hyderabad, as such, the petitioner sought for transfer the said cases to the Court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to be tried simultaneously with the suit in which he is defendant NO.1 i.e., O.S.No.976 of 2013 and that taking up all three suits together would save time, prevent hardship to the parties involved, and avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments.

3. Heard Sri Syed Razzaq Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri V.Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to law and facts, and suffers from material irregularity and illegality and contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the cause of action for OS.No.1953 of 2019 and OS.No.2143 of 2019 arose on 30.05.2018 when the plaintiff in OS.No.976 of 2013 attempted to dig a borewell on the property belonging to the plaintiff in OS.No.1953 and 2143 of 2019. He lamented that the subject matter of the property is the same, and that trying the suits at different Courts may lead to conflicting judgments, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable loss to the parties. He emphasized that trying all suits simultaneously by the same Court would save time, prevent hardship, and avoid conflicting judgments, and that the trial Court ought to have considered the said factors before passing impugned orders. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated 09.01.2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, and contended that the subject matter, cause of action, reliefs sought, and parties in the suits are different. He asserted that a scrutiny of the plaints in OS.No..976 of 2013 and OS.No..143 of 2019 would show that the subject properties have different house numbers and the cause of action is distinct, and the reliefs sought are different with that of OS.No.976 of 2013 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction, whereas OS.No.2143 of 2019 seeking only the relief of perpetual injunction. He averred that clubbing the matters would complicate the disposal, causing grave hardship to the parties, as the reliefs sought, nature of evidence, and parties are different. Therefore, while advocating that there are no infirmities or illegalities in the orders under challenge, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions as the same lacks merits.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted th