Disposed¶55

Brahma Kavitha v. Poondla Venku Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jan 2025CRP/56/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of suits; Section 24 C.P.C.; joint trial; simultaneous trial; Article 227 Constitution of India; civil revision petition; Principal District Judge Nellore; III Additional District Judge Nellore; T.O.P. No.382 of 2023; O.S.No.06 of 2020; O.S.No.81 of 2019; inconsistent judgments; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice B S Bhanumathi; CRP 56 of 2025; 21/01/2025.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of with the above directions: the trial Court to decide, after hearing both parties, whether to conduct a joint trial or a simultaneous trial; the revision petitioner may represent to the trial Court if opposing a joint trial; if no joint trial is ordered, both suits shall be simultaneously tried; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶55

Brahma Kavitha Vs Poondla Venku Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction to conduct a joint trial contained in the transfer order passed under Section 24 of C.P.C. is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction under that provision. +1 more

¶53

Court's answer

A direction to conduct a joint trial while passing an order under Section 24 of C.P.C. is uncalled for; whether a joint trial or a simultaneous trial is to be held is a decision for the trial Court.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The learned Principal District Judge's observations are correct: the plaint schedules in both suits cannot be said to be unrelated to each other, the parties in both suits are admittedly the same, and disposal by two different courts risks inconsistent judgments; hence there is no need to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition.

¶49

Key takeaways

On a perusal of the impugned order, no joint trial had in fact been directed; the choice between joint trial or simultaneous trial was left open to the trial Court, and therefore the order cannot be found fault with.ratio¶54
The revision petitioner may represent to the trial Court if she opposes a joint trial; the trial Court must decide after hearing both parties whether a joint trial is required, and if a joint trial is not ordered both suits shall be simultaneously tried.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.09.2024 of the Principal District Judge, Nellore in T.O.P. No.382 of 2023 (filed under Section 24 C.P.C.) transferring O.S.No.06 of 2020 from his file to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Nellore for joint trial along with O.S.No.81 of 2019. The High Court declined to interfere: the plaint schedules in the two suits cannot be said to be unrelated, the parties are admittedly the same, and disposal of the suits by two different courts carries every chance of inconsistent judgments. On the contention that the direction to conduct a joint trial exceeded the scope of Section 24 C.P.C., the Court held such a direction is uncalled for, observed that the impugned order had in fact left the choice of joint or simultaneous trial open to the trial Court, clarified that the revision petitioner may represent to the trial Court if opposing a joint trial, that the trial Court must decide after hearing both parties, and that failing a joint trial the suits shall be simultaneously tried. Revision petition disposed of; no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH At AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUA TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 56 OF 2025

¶6

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

¶7

Between:

¶8

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

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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.

¶12

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)

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶15

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

¶16

f •p. J ¥

¶17

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 .-ft

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. P GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: --

¶20

The Court made the followingiORDER

¶21

APHC010004572025

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

[3311]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY

¶26

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 56/2025

Between:

Brahma Kavitha

...PETITIONER

AND

PoondIa Venku Reddy and Others

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.P GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

¶40

The Court made the following:

CRP.No.56 of 2025

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of^{Constitutionof} 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.06of2020} from the file of Court of Principal District Judge,^{Nelloreandtransferthe} 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.

¶46

nd 02. 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^{transferofthe} 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^{withadirectionto} conduct joint or simultaneous trial.

¶47

nd 03. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed by the 2 respondent contending that the suit schedule property^inbothsuits is not one and the same and joint trial cannot be conducted^andfurther stating that the subject property in both suits is^{notoneandthesameas} the extent, boundaries, sub divisions of survey numbers^{aredifferent.}

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶49

The learned Principal District Judge observed that the plaint schedule in both suits cannot be held that they are^{notrelatedtoeach} other and that if both suits are disposed of by two^{differentCourts,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.

CRP.No.56 of 2025

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that^thedirection to conduct joint trial is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction under Section 24 of C.P.C.

¶54

Direction to conduct joint trial while passing an order under Section 24 of C.P.C. is uncalled for. It is always^{forthetrialCourtto} 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.

¶55