APHC010282072024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1401/2024 Between: Sri Haridasula Chakradhara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Chakkapalli Satyavathi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent: - The Court made the following: VS,J crp_1401_2024 2 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners- defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.157 of 2024 in O.S.No.100 of 2016 by the VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram. 2) The case of the petitioners-defendants is that they filed O.S.No.82 of 2016 against the respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale with regard to property to an extent of Ac.2.60 cents in Sy.No.32 of Uttarakanchi Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District by contending that the respondent’s husband executed an agreement of sale on 09.06.1997 and delivered possession on 10.07.1997 by receiving advance sale consideration, her sons also appended their signatures on the reverse of sale agreement. Later, several times the petitioners herein requested them to execute the sale deed, but they refused to do so, therefore, the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.82 of 2016 for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Subsequent to filing of the same, respondent herein filed O.S.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC) Peddapuram against the petitioners herein seeking permanent injunction by contending that she is the owner of an extent of Ac.2.45 cents in R.S.NO.32 of Uttarakanchi Village, East Godavari District. Originally the property is the ancestral property of the husband of the respondent and they got two sons namely Sanyasi Raju and Appa Rao. The husband of respondent VS,J crp_1401_2024 3 Appa Rao and two sons partitioned their properties in the year 1995 and in the said partition the present suit schedule property allotted to sons. Thereafter, they executed registered Gift deeds in favour of the respondent herein on 16.09.2009, subsequently she got pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The defendants in the said suit who are having land in same survey number requested to sell the property, but she refused to sell the same; apprehending that they may dispossess her, she filed the said suit. As the parties and the schedule property is one and the same in both the suits, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.157 of 2024 to club O.S.No.100 of 2016 with O.S.No.82 of 2016 and record common evidence in both the suits and to pass common judgment in the interest of justice. 3) The said I.A.No.157 of 2024 was disposed of by the Court below vide orders dated 12.12.2024 by observing that both the suits are filed for different relief, as such there are no tenable grounds to club both the suits. However, the Court below has permitted to conduct the trial in both the suits simultaneously. 4) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners – defendants preferred the present revision. 5) Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners- defendants and learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 6) It is an admitted fact that the petitioners herein filed suit O.S.No.82 of 2016 for specific performance of agreement of sale seeking a direction to the respondent herein to execute regular VS,J crp_1401_2024 4 registered sale deed in respect of property to an extent of Ac.2.60 cents in Sy.No.32 of Uttarakanchi Village, whereas Suit O.S.No.100 of 2016 is filed by the respondent – plaintiff herein against the petitioners herein for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners herein), his men and persons from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule property to an extent of Ac.2.45 cents in Sy.No.32 of Uttarakanchi village. On perusal of both the plaints, it can be observed that the subject property in both the suits and the parties are one and the same. Further, it can also be observed that as on the date of filing of the present I.A.157 of 2024, the trial has not commenced in O.S.No.82 of 2016, in such case, there would not be any difficulty for the trial Court to conduct a comprehensive trial in both the suits to avoid conflict of judgments. 7) In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to club both suits for conducting comprehensive trial by recording common evidence. 8) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.157 of 2024 in O.S.No.100 of 2016 by the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram by directing the trial Court to club both the suits i.e. O.S.No.100 of 2016 and O.S.No.82 of 2016 pending on the file of VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram for conducting comprehensive trial by recording common evidence and pass common judgment. No costs. VS,J crp_1401_2024 5 9) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 08.01.2026 NSM/Ksp