The court held that under Section 24 of the CPC, suits involving the same subject property and similar parties can be transferred for joint trial to prevent conflicting judgments and multiplicity of litigation, exercising discretionary power in the interest of justice.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Tr.O.P.No.9 of 2025 by the Principal District Judge, Nizamabad, wherein the Transfer O.P. filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and the suit vide O.S.No.8 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Armoor was withdrawn and transferred to the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Armoor, to try along with O.S.No.17 of 2022.

2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.8 of 2023 is filed for partition and separate possession and declaration in respect of the properties of late M.A. Jabbar, whereas O.S.No.17 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner herein for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. It is contended that the nature of reliefs in both the suits is distinct and independent, and therefore, the question of clubbing both the suits does not arise. It is further contended that respondent No.1 has not made out any valid ground for transfer and that the learned Principal District Judge erred in allowing the Transfer O.P. without proper appreciation of the pleadings and issues involved in both the suits and therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that both the suits pertain to the same subject property and involve substantially the same parties. It is submitted that if both the suits are tried separately by different Courts, there is every possibility of conflicting findings being recorded. It is further contended that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure consistency in adjudication, the learned Principal District Judge has rightly exercised the power under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) in ordering transfer of the suit.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, O.S.No.8 of 2023 is filed by respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession and for declaration of certain gift settlement deeds and registered sale deeds as null and void, whereas O.S.No.17 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner herein seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the respondent No.1 herein. The suit property in O.S.No.17 of 2022 is part and parcel of the suit properties in O.S.No.8 of 2023 and that the petitioner herein and respondent No.1 herein are similar parties in both the suits. The pleadings in both the suits disclose that adjudication in one suit will have a direct bearing on the issues involved in the other suit. If both the suits are tried separately, there is every likelihood of conflicting judgments, resulting in multiplicity of litigation. The power under Section 24 of CPC is discretionary and is required to be exercised in the interest of justice. In the present case, the learned Principal District Judge, upon considering the pleadings and circumstances, has exercised such discretion to order joint trial. The reasoning assigned for ordering joint trial to avoid conflicting decisions and to ensure effective adjudication is just and proper. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.