THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1787/ 2025

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed assailing the propriety of the decree and order dated 8-4-2025 in I.A.No.39 of 2025 in O.S.No. 82 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Cum Assistant Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

2. I have heard Mr.M.N.Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Devender, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent, moved an interlocutory application seeking the framing of additional issues for trial. The trial court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent instituted a suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction, whereas the revision petitioner has filed a separate suit seeking a declaration of title in respect of the very same property. At the instance of the revision petitioner, the respondent’s suit was transferred to the file of the present court to be tried along with the petitioner’s suit. However, the trial court is presently proceeding to conduct simultaneous but separate trials of the matters. It is contended that, in such circumstances, framing issues relating to title in the injunction suit would enable the court to comprehensively adjudicate the entire dispute. According to the petitioner, the trial court failed to appreciate this aspect and dismissed the application. While this revision petition formally challenges the impugned order, counsel urges that, in the interest of justice, directing a joint trial of the suits would effectively address the grievance.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly admits that suits, the one filed by the respondent and the one filed by the revision petitioner pertain to the same property. Although supporting the impugned order, counsel for the respondent raised no specific objection to the conduct of a joint trial.

6. I have carefully perused the material available on record.

7. Upon due consideration, it is evident that the suit filed by the revision petitioner (O.S. No. 82 of 2019) seeks a declaration of title, while the respondent’s suit (O.S. No. 113 of 2016) seeks a decree of perpetual injunction. Both suits concern the same property, and the issues arising therein are inextricably interconnected. In such a situation, conducting separate trials would be an unnecessary procedural exercise, leading to duplication of proceedings, avoidable consumption of judicial time, and the potential for inconsistent findings.

8. A joint trial, by contrast, would enable the court to adjudicate all disputes between the parties in a single, cohesive proceeding, thereby ensuring a comprehensive and conclusive determination of all issues in controversy.

9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, although the revision petition was initially filed to challenge an order recasting the issues, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners confined the relief sought to a direction for conducting a joint trial so as to ensure the complete and effective resolution of the disputes.

10. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds it just and proper to dispose of the present Civil Revision Petition with a direction to the trial court to conduct a joint trial of O.S. No. 82 of 2019 and O.S. No. 113 of 2016, thereby securing a comprehensive adjudication of all matters in controversy.

11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:14.08.2025 AQS