APHC010224342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1191 OF 2025 Between: 1. MEDISETTI LOVA DORA, S/O RAMANA DORA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O PYDIKONDA, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SUNKARA VARA LAKSHMI, W/O SURYA NARAYANA, AGED 41 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O SUNKARA COLONY, SRUNGAVRUSHKAM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. MEDISETTI RAMANNA DORA, S/O LATE CHITTIYYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O PYDIKONDA, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. MEDISETTI SRI DORA, S/O RAMANNA DORA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O PYDIKONDA, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. THOTA NOOKARATNAM, W/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O NAVARA VILLAGE, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T N M RANGA RAO 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 22.02.2025 in I.A.No.88 of 2025 in O.S.No.167 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram. 2) The 1st respondent herein / plaintiff filed the said suit against the petitioner herein – defendant No.2 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking partition of items 1 to 9 of plaint schedule properties. The petitioner filed his written statement and contesting the matter. While the said suit is pending, the 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.15 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, against the petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant / petitioner herein, his henchmen, agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff / 1st respondent herein in respect of the plaint schedule property situated in Sy.No.149-1, D.No.5-32, Assessment No.414 of an extent of 242.67 square yards or 202.89 square meters situated on the eastern side out of 485.34 sq.yards vacant site. The petitioner / sole defendant is contesting the said suit by filing the written statement. 3) The 3rd respondent herein / 3rd defendant in O.S.No.167 of 2018 filed an independent suit in O.S.No.16 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, against the petitioner and three others i.e., Medisetti Suribabu, Medisetti Surya Satyanarayana and Medisetti Sridhar, seeking to declare that he is the absolute owner of Item No.1 of the plaint 3 schedule property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan and to declare that the Decree in OS No.211 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, obtained by the petitioner herein / 1st defendant with wrong boundaries is not binding on him and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen, agents etc., from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner / 1st defendant in the said suit filed written statement and contesting the same. 4) The petitioner / 2nd defendant in OS No.167 of 2018 when the matter is coming up for cross-examination of D.W.1 / 1st defendant filed the above said I.A. stating that the main dispute between all the parties in the suits referred to above is one and the same and sought for conducting joint trial of all the three suits. The said application was opposed by the respondents, except the 2nd respondent. Learned Trial Judge after considering the matter while referring to the nature of the pending suits, observing that the parties in the suits are different and reliefs are different and further that OS No.167 of 2018 is an old matter, coming up for defendant’s side evidence and ready for disposal, rejected the application seeking conduct of joint trial. 5) Assailing the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions by drawing the attention to the relief portions in the respective plaints to impress upon this Court that the subject matter properties in two suits i.e., O.S.Nos.15 and 16 of 2024 are one and the same and in fact they form part of the properties which are subject matter of O.S.No.167 of 2018. 4 He submits that in fact originally the said suit was filed in respect of the nine items, subsequently the plaintiff / 1st respondent deleted Item Nos.7 to 9 by filing an application. He also submits that parties to the suits are same and in such circumstances, it would be convenient to conduct a joint trial and in fact, the same would avoid conflicting judgments. He submits that the learned trial Court without considering the matter in proper perspective went wrong in dismissing the application. He submits that pleadings in all the three suits are completed. Therefore, the same can be clubbed and a joint trial can be conducted. Making the said submissions and relying on the decision reported in State Bank of India Vs Ranjan Chemicals Ltd., and Another1, learned counsel seeks to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 6) On the other hand, Ms.T. Sreesha, learned counsel for the respondents made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. She empathetically submitted that the nature of the suits is different, the cause of action is different and as is seen from the cause titles in the respective suits, the parties are also different. She submits that when OS No.167 of 2018 filed by the 1st respondent herein is ripen and ready for disposal, the petitioner came up with the application in question at the fag end and the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the same. She submits that as stated in the counter filed in the I.A., the only intention of the petitioner is to drag on the matter, that there are no bona fides and conduct of the joint trial in the facts and circumstances 1 (2007) 1 SCC 97 5 when different reliefs are sought for, deserves no consideration. While distinguishing the judgment in Ranjan Chemicals Ltd., case referred to above, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the CRP. 7) This Court has considered the submissions made. Perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for adjudication is “Whether the impugned order warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 8) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the parties in the above referred three suits are same and the properties which are subject matter of the suits broadly are the same. Though the said submission, to the extent of some of the properties may be correct, but a comparison of the cause titles and the reliefs sought for in the respective plaints, would make it clear that parties to all these suits are not one and the same, even the reliefs as noted earlier are different and the nature of the reliefs are also different. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9) Further, there is no dispute about the proposition of Law in Ranjan Chemicals case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if some issues and some evidence is common, a joint trial can be ordered, especially when two cause of actions arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there is no restriction to the effect that such a joint trial can be ordered only if there is a consensus by both sides. In para 11 of the said 6 judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “a joint trial is ordered when a court finds that the ordering of such a trial, would avoid separate overlapping evidence being taken in the two causes put in suit and it will be more convenient to try them together in the interests of the parties and in the interests of an effective trial of the causes.” 10) However, in the present case, the learned Trial Judge assigned reasons, which are cogent, for not conducting a joint trial. 11) In P. Sivaramaiah @ P. Suresh Babu2, the learned Judge dealt with similar fact situation as in the present case. The learned Trial Judge while recording a finding that the subject matter and the properties involved in both the suits are not one and the same and the facts and cause of action are also different, held that the suits cannot be clubbed and at the most, the simultaneous disposal of both the suits can be sought, however evidence has to be adduced separately. In the revision, the same was upheld. 12) In the present case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the cause of action for filing the above referred suits is different and distinct. The subject matter properties in the suit and also the parties to the suit are not one and the same. The nature of the reliefs sought for are different. In these circumstances, the view taken by the learned Trial Court for rejecting the request for clubbing of suits and conducting a joint trial cannot be viewed as illegal or perverse. The order under challenge, in the facts and 2 2003(1) APLJ 69 (SN) 7 circumstances of the case, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. In such a view of the matter, this Court see no ground to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 14) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:19.09.2025 Ssv 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1191 OF 2025 Date:19.09.2025 Ssv