IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH At AMARAVATI TUESDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUA TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 56 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order in T.O.P. No.382 of 2023 dt. 25.09.2024 on the file of The Principal District Judge, Nellore Between: Brahma Kavitha, W/o. Brahma Bhaskar Rao, Aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No. 27-11-1767-1, Lakshmi Nagar, Balajinagar, Nellore city - 524 002 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Poondia Venku Reddy, S/o Chenchu Reddy, aged about 72 years. Contractor, R/o D.No. 16-7-151, Ramamurthy Nagar, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Bathina Madhusudhan Reddy,, S/o Mohan Rami Reddy, aged about 55 years, Reas Estate Business, R/o D.No. 4/206, Nawabpet, Nellore City. (R2 is not necessary party in this CRP) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order passed in T.O.P. No. 382 of 2023 dated. 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore f •p. J .-ft ¥ Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the followingiORDER APHC010004572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 56/2025 Between: Brahma Kavitha ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) PoondIa Venku Reddy and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 CRP.No.56 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 25.09.2024 allowing T.O.P.No.382 of 2023, filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to withdraw O.S.No.06 of 2020 from the file of Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore and transfer the same to Court of III Additional District Judge, Nellore to conduct a joint trial along with O.S.No.81 of 2019 on its file. nd The petition was opposed by filing counter of the 2 respondent/revision petitioner. After hearing both parties, the learned Principal District Judge allowed the petition and ordered transfer of the suit in O.S.No.06 of 2020 from the file of Principal District Court, Nellore to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Nellore with a direction to conduct joint or simultaneous trial. 02. nd Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed by the 2 respondent contending that the suit schedule property in both suits is not one and the same and joint trial cannot be conducted and further stating that the subject property in both suits is not one and the same as the extent, boundaries, sub divisions of survey numbers are different. 03. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 04. The learned Principal District Judge observed that the plaint schedule in both suits cannot be held that they are not related to each other and that if both suits are disposed of by two different Courts, there is every chance to get inconsistent judgments. Admittedly, the parties in both the suits are the same. Since the above observations are not found to be incorrect, there is no need to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition. 05. \ T 3 CRP.No.56 of 2025 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction to conduct joint trial is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction under Section 24 of C.P.C. 06. Direction to conduct joint trial while passing an order under Section 24 of C.P.C. is uncalled for. It is always for the trial Court to take a decision to conduct whether there shall be a joint trial or simultaneous trial. A perusal of the order shows that it has not directed a joint trial to be held. It is left open to the trial Court to conduct joint trial or simultaneous trial. Therefore, the order cannot be found fault with. Anyhow, it is for the trial Court to take a decision, after hearing both the parties. It is made clear that the revision petitioner can represent to the trial Court, if she is opposing a joint trial. It is only after hearing both the parties, the trial Court has to take a decision as to whether a joint trial is required or not. If a joint trial is not ordered, both suits shall be simultaneously tried. 07. 08. Accordingly, with above directions, the revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, .if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- KJ. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District Judge, Nellore, Nellore District 2. One CC to Sri. P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate {OPUCj 3. Three CD Copies ns T HIGH COURT DATED :21/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.56 of 2025 ep O' 5 2 5 MAR 2025 a^ . Current b ★ DISPOSING THE CRP