APHC010008042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. SMT. ATLURI VANI,, W/O. JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 13-8, THOTAKURA SIVARAMA KRISHNA STREET, PORANKI, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 2. ATLURI @ ADUSUMILLI SRINATH,, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 13 KRISHNA STREET, PORANKI, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 1. JANET MALINI TYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMANT RATNAKAR TYAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O. PURAM, KRISHNA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. 2. PANCHAKARLA NAGAMANI, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI VISWANATH, R/O. D. NO. 54 NAGAR GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. 3. PANCHAKARLA SANDEEP, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI VISWANATH, R/O. D. NO. 54 NAGAR GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. 4. PANCHAKARLA S S MURTHY, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI VISWANATH, R/O. D. NO. 54 NAGAR, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P.J 5. VALLURU MADHAVI, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. PRASADAMPADU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 201 OF 2025 SMT. ATLURI VANI,, W/O. JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 8, THOTAKURA SIVARAMA KRISHNA STREET, PORANKI, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. ATLURI @ ADUSUMILLI SRINATH,, S/O. CHAKRADHARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 13-8, THOTAKURA SIVARAMA KRISHNA STREET, PORANKI, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA ...PETITIONER(S) AND JANET MALINI TYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMANT RATNAKAR TYAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O. D. NO. 40-3-3, VENKATESWARA PURAM, KRISHNA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. PANCHAKARLA NAGAMANI, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI VISWANATH, R/O. D. NO. 54-19-23A, N.M. ROAD, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. HAKARLA SANDEEP, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI VISWANATH, R/O. D. NO. 54-19-23A, N.M. ROAD, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. PANCHAKARLA S S MURTHY, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI VISWANATH, R/O. D. NO. 54-19-23A, N.M. ROAD, JAYAP NAGAR, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P.J VALLURU MADHAVI, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. PRASADAMPADU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER SMT. ATLURI VANI,, W/O. JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 8, THOTAKURA SIVARAMA KRISHNA STREET, PORANKI, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. S/O. CHAKRADHARA RAO, 8, THOTAKURA SIVARAMA KRISHNA STREET, PORANKI, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA ...PETITIONER(S) JANET MALINI TYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMANT RATNAKAR TYAGARAJ, 3, VENKATESWARA PURAM, KRISHNA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. PANCHAKARLA NAGAMANI, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI 23A, N.M. ROAD, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. HAKARLA SANDEEP, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI 23A, N.M. ROAD, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. PANCHAKARLA S S MURTHY, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA KASI 23A, N.M. ROAD, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P.J VALLURU MADHAVI, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. PRASADAMPADU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL 2 VS,J CRP.No.201 of 2025 MANDAL, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned Decree and Order passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in allowing the petition in Tr. O.P. No.62/2024 dated 19.11.2024 and pass IA 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 pleased to dispense with filing of Certified Copy of Decree and Order in Tr. O.P. No.62/2024 dated 19.11.2024 passed by theHon’ble Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to suspend the operation of decree and order in Tr. O.P. No.62/2024 dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, until disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V RAVI PRASAD 3 VS,J CRP.No.201 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Transfer O.P. No. 62 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, whereby, the said Transfer O.P. filed by the 1st respondent herein, seeking transfer of O.S.No.31 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Vijayawada, to the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, to try along with O.S.No.45 of 2024, was allowed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below. 3. The suit in O.S.No.31 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, was filed by the petitioners herein against the 1st respondent and five others, seeking permanent injunction. While the said suit was pending, the petitioners herein filed another suit vide O.S.No.45 of 2024 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the 1st respondent and another, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein, who is one of the defendants in the above suits, filed the Transfer O.P., seeking transfer of O.S.No.31 of 2015 from the Court of the VI Additional Civil Judge, Vijayawada, to the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, to try along with O.S.No.45 of 2024. The Transfer O.P. was resisted by the petitioners herein. However, the Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, allowed the O.P. by the 4 VS,J CRP.No.201 of 2025 impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.31 of 2015 and O.S.No.45 of 2024 are different and there is no necessity to club both suits for a joint trial. It is further contended that the stage of the suits is also different. O.S.No.31 of 2015 is at the stage of defendant’s evidence, while O.S.No.45 of 2024 is at the stage of summons. Further, in O.S.No.31 of 2015, there are six defendants, whereas in O.S.No.45 of 2024, there are only two defendants. As O.S.No.31 of 2015 is an old matter, it is just and necessary to decide the said suit expeditiously on its own merits. The transfer petition has been filed by the respondent No.1 herein only with an intention to delay the proceedings. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. 7. As can be seen from the record, both the suits are instituted by the petitioners herein. The 1st respondent herein is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.31 of 2015 and defendant No.1 in O.S.No.45 of 2024. Though the petitioners have contended that the parties in both suits are different, the Trial Court has categorically observed that defendant Nos.4 to 6 in O.S.No.31 of 2015 are the 5 VS,J CRP.No.201 of 2025 legal heirs of defendant No.3. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are different parties in the suits. It can also be seen from the impugned order that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.45 of 2024 forms a substantial part of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.31 of 2015. 8. In such circumstances, as similar questions of fact have to be decided in both suits and to avoid conflicting judgments, the Trial Court has rightly deemed it appropriate to club both suits for a joint trial, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper, and no interference is warranted therewith. 9. However, as O.S.No.31 of 2015 is an old matter and is at the stage of defendant’s evidence and in O.S.No.45 of 2024, the trial is yet to be commenced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition with a direction to the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, to conclude the trial in both suits as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same on their own merits, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.09.2025 TJN/BSK 6 VS,J CRP.No.201 of 2025 595 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 201 OF 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 TJN/BSK