Allowed

Chireddy Konda Reddy v. Gontu Koti Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jul 2023CRP/708/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition, the High Court allowed the application challenging the dismissal of a plea to consolidate two suits. The court held that consolidation under Section 151 CPC was necessary to avoid conflicting decisions and duplicate evidence regarding the validity of an agreement of sale, despite differences in the nature of causes of action and parties involved. The impugned order

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.12.2021 set aside; I.A.No.522 of 2021 allowed; suits O.S.No.51 of 2019 and 59 of 2017 consolidated for joint trial.

Chireddy Konda Reddy Vs Gontu Koti Reddy — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 708 of 2022

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 16.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.522 of 2021 in O.S.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

¶6

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein are the defendants in O.S.No.51 of 2019, petitioner No.3 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.59 of 2017 whereas the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are defendants in O.S.No.59 of 2017 and further the 1^st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2019. Both the suits are pending on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

¶7

The petitioners filed I.A.No.522 of 2021 in O.S.No.51 of 2019 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’, for short) to club both the suits, conduct joint trial and pronounce common judgment by recording evidence in O.S.No.51 of 2019 contending that, the issues involved are common and the evidence to be adduced is also common.

¶8

¶9

The respondents resisted the claim made by the petitioners that the nature of the suits is different and the issues to be resolved in both the suits are distinct and so also the evidence to be let in.

¶10

The Court below upon considering the facts and circumstances of

¶11

the case and also the submissions made by both the learned counsel, dismissed the petition.

¶12

Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred this Civil Revision Petition mainly on the ground that since the 3^rd petitioner and the respondents are claiming possession over the property, in order to avoid conflicting judgments both the suits are to be clubbed, but the Court below failed to properly exercise jurisdiction and erroneously dismissed the petition. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

¶13

Heard Sri P.Vijay Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶14

Sri P.Vijay Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, subject matter of both the suits is the same and common questions of fact and law arise in both the suits and so also the evidence to be let in

¶15

¶16

by the parties in both the suits is common. Therefore, to avoid conflicting decisions and duplication of evidence both the suits are to be tried and dispose of together, which would not only save the time but also cut short the expenditure to be incurred by the parties. However, the Court below on erroneous reasoning dismissed the petition. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

¶17

On the other hand, Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that nature of the suits are quiet different and distinct. The third petitioner is not a party to the suit in O.S.No.51 of 2019. The parties to the suits and the subject matter are also different. The issues involved in the suits and the evidence to be let in by the parties are not common. There are no grounds to club the suits. The Court below has perused the material in proper perspective and has rightly dismissed the petition. There are no justifiable grounds either urged or raised in this Civil Revision Petition warranting interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶18

Perusal of the material would indicate that the 1^st respondent filed a suit vide O.S.No.51 of 2019 against the petitioners 1 and 2 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession

¶19

¶20

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e. of a tiled house, contending that the defendants, who have nothing to do with the suit schedule property, are trying to interfere with the possession of the 1^st respondent over the plaint schedule property, which was purchased by his paternal grandmother and consequent to her death devolved upon his father and on his death ultimately devolved upon the 1^st respondent. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 resisted the suit claim contending that the 1^st respondent’s father Venkateswara Reddy agreed to sell 72 sq.yards, which is eastern portion of the plaint schedule property with a tiled room and also Ac.1-50 cents of land in Satuluru village for a total consideration of Rs.6,50,000/-. Having received advance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/father of the 1^st respondent executed an agreement of sale dated 10.01.2015 in favour of wife of the 1^st petitioner agreeing to execute regular sale deed within an year, after discharging the debt due to Syndicate Bank and after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and by virtue of the said agreement of sale the 1^st petitioner and his wife (3^rd petitioner) were put in possession of the property.

¶21

The record would further makes it clear that the 3^rd petitioner filed O.S.No.59 of 2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge,

¶22

¶23

Narasaraopet against the respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale said to have been executed by their father in respect of the plaint schedule properties i.e., eastern part of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.51 of 2019 and land in an extent of Ac.1-50 cents. The respondents resisted the claim, contending that the suit agreement of sale projected by the 3^rd petitioner is not genuine and was never executed by their father and more so, the properties being joint family properties, their father has no right to enter into agreement of sale. It is their further claim that as per the family settlement dated 25.05.1995 the 1^st respondent became owner of the suit schedule property.

¶24

Nature of the suits is different. One is filed for permanent injunction and the other one is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.59 of 2017 is part of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.51 of 2019. Item No.2 of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.59 of 2017 is no way concerned with the suit in O.S.No.51 of 2019. The 3^rd petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.59 of 2017 but she is not at all a party in O.S.No.51 of 2019. Likewise, the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the defendants in O.S.No.51 of 2019, are not at all parties in O.S.No.59 of 2017.

¶25

¶26

The purpose of consolidation of suits is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. Consolidation of suits can be ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses and the parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials.

¶27

In the case on hand, despite the glaring dissimilarities pointed out above, it is explicit from the pleadings that, truth or otherwise of the agreement of sale propounded by the petitioners and denied by the respondents is the contentious issue to be decided by the Court in both the suits. Thus, consolidation of the suits would avert the need of leading same evidence regarding the agreement of sale twice and consequently the same would save the expenses, effort and it would further rules out the possibility of conflicting decisions.

¶28

The Court below is not correct in holding that consolidation of the suits would lead to ambiguity in the decision of the issues. Therefore, the impugned order requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.

¶29

¶30

In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the orders dated 16.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.522 of 2021 in O.S.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. Consequently, I.A.No.522 of 2021 is allowed. The Court below shall consolidate O.S.No.51 of 2019 and 59 of 2017, conduct joint trial. However, it is left open to the Court below to decide the lead suit subject to convenience of the parties as well as the Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

¶32

_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶33

4^th July, 2023 RR

¶34

¶35

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶36

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.708 of 2022

¶37

4^th July, 2023

¶38

Chireddy Konda Reddy v. Gontu Koti Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chireddy Konda Reddy v. Gontu Koti Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rechintala Vema Reddy Vs the State Information Commission

M/S. Sri Kodandarama Boiled and Raw Rice Mill Vs Union of India

M/S. Kpr Rice Mills Vs Union of India

Mogali Satyanarayana Reddy Vs M/S.Srinilayam

Sri Visweswaraiah Educational Society Vs the University Grants Commission (Ugc)

Anne Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Ap