APHC010564952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3402/2025 Between: 1. BOBBILI KONDABABU, S/O LATE. JAGANNADHAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0. KOTHAVALASA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GUDE RAMU, S/O LATE. CHINA APPALA SWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/0. DANDERU VILLAGE KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. GUDE ESWARARAO, S/O LATE. APPARAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. DANDERU VILLAGE KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. GUDE SANKARA RAO, S/O LATE. TATARAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. DANDERU VILLAGE KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...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 set aside the order dated. 26-08-2025 passed in Transfer OP.No.12 of 2025 on the file of Principal District Judge Vizianagaram and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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 stay of operation of the order dated. 26-08-2025 in Tr.O.P.No.12 of 2025 on the file Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram pending disposal of the present Transfer Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M BALASUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit vide O.S.No.6 of 2017 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram and the petitioner has also filed O.S.No.224 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. Both the suits were filed for specific performance. The schedule in O.S.No.6 of 2017 is to an extent of Ac.2.45 cents in Sy.No.50/2 of Denderu Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District and the schedule in O.S.No.224 of 2017 is to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.50/1 of Denderu Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram. The defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 in O.S.No.224 of 2017 are the respondents herein. 2. The respondents herein filed a petition vide Transfer Original Petition.No.12 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to withdraw the suit vide O.S.No.224 of 2017 from the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and transfer the same to the learned IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, to be tried along with O.S.No.6 of 2017. 3. The learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, vide order dated 26.08.2025, allowed the transfer petition, withdrew the suit O.S.No.224 of 2017 from the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and transfer the same to the learned IV Additional 4 District Judge, Vizianagaram, to be tried along with O.S.No.6 of 2017, on the grounds that both the suits are filed for specific performance of agreement of sales dated 21.02.2014 and 04.04.2014 and since the parties are the same and it is necessary that both the suits be tried together and decided with common judgment. 4. Assailing the order in Transfer Original Petition No.12 of 2025, dated 26.08.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the cause of action in both the suits are different and the documents are different, except the parties are same. The trial Court erred in allowing the Tr.O.P., and prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed in Tr.O.P.No.12 of 2025, and to adjudicate both the suits separately. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Arka Lakshmi Manohari versus Pillamongolla Ranga Rao1, wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the consolidation cannot be ordered, as there cannot be any conflicting decisions. When the cause of action for filing the suits are distinct and separate on different and independent transactions and the agreement of sale are different and distinct, merely the parties are same that cannot be the decided by common Judgment. 6. Sri M. Balasubrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the parties and the properties are one 1 2015 4 CurCC 380 5 and the same. Hence, supported the findings in the Tr.O.P.No.12 of 2025. 7. On perusal of the Judgment, documents and the schedule filed by the plaintiff in the plaint copy, the properties are different and the causes of the action in both the suits are different. In view of the Judgment of this Court referred supra, the order impugned of the learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, is liable to be set aside. 8. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed in Tr.O.P.No.12 of 2025, filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 30.01.2026 SCH 6 139 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO C.R.P.No.3402 OF 2025 Date: 30.01.2026 SCH