Dama Nageswara Rao Vs Dama Peramma

DAMA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE POTHU RAJU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O DAMAVARIPALEM, ADDANKI TOWN AND MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

DAMA PERAMMA, W/O. LATE ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DAMAVARIPALEM, ADDANKI TOWN AND MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶14

SADINENI ANANTHA KUMARI, W/O. RAVI, D/O LATE ANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ELCHURU VILLAGE, SAVALYAPURAM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

DAMA LAXMAN LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O LATE ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. DAMAVARIPALEM, ADDANKI TOWN AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶16

DAMA SUBBA RAO, (DIED)

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

NARRA VARA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. VELAMURIPADU VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶19

DAMA NARASAMMA, W/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DAMAVARIPALEM, ADDANKI TOWN AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶20

RAYAVARAPU RADHA, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MALLAVAGU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶21

PARA RUKMINI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DAMAVARIPALEM, ADDANKI TOWN AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶22

POTINENI RAJESWARI, W/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MARELLA GUNTAPALEM, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

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 to Being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dt. 15.04.2025 in I.A. No. 413 of 2023 in O.S. No. 208 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, the above-named petitioner prefers this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition for the following among other

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶26

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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 208 of 2015 on the file of the court of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, pending disposal of the main CRP and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.PETLURI NAGA RAJU

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.YADAVALLI RAMESH

¶32

2.K KEDHARNATH CHOWDARY

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Heard Sri P. Rishendra Sai, learned counsel, representing Sri Petluri Naga Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Y. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri K. Kedharnath Chowdary, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 9.

¶36

Defendant No.2 in the suit filed the above civil revision petition (hereinafter referred to as ‘revision’) against the order dated 15.04.2025 in I.A.No.413 of 2023 in O.S.No.208 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Addanki.

¶37

Respondents 1 to 3, being the plaintiffs, instituted O.S.No.208 of 2015 against the petitioner/defendant No.2 and other respondents, seeking partition of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 filed O.S.No.151 of 2018 against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.208 of 2015, seeking a perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property.

¶38

In O.S.No.208 of 2015, respondents 1 to 3 / plaintiffs filed I.A.No.413 of 2023 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to club both the suits i.e. O.S.Nos.208 of 2015 and 151 of 2018. The said application was allowed by the trial Court on 15.04.2025, against which the above revision was filed.

¶39

Page 4 of 4

¶40

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the cause of action in both the suits is different and hence the clubbing of the suits does not arise.

¶41

The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the property and issues involved in both the suits are interconnected and the trial Court rightly allowed the petition.

¶42

As seen from the material available on record, the suit O.S.No.208 of 2015 is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property and the suit in O.S.No.151 of 2018 is filed for permanent injunction. The property in both suits is the same. Therefore, the trial Court, by exercising the jurisdiction vested in it, allowed the application to avoid conflicting judgments in both suits. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court, which brooks interference from this Court.

¶43

Hence, the revision is dismissed without costs. Since the suits are of the years 2015 and 2018, the learned trial Court shall expedite the trial, in view of the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/ 2022, dated 23.11.2022 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶46

Date: 07.07.2026 IKN

¶47

Whether the order is :

¶48

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No

¶49

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

Dama Nageswara Rao v. Dama Peramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dama Nageswara Rao v. Dama Peramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurminelly Venkunaidu Vs Reddi Ramunaidu

Sunkari.Radha Kumari Vs Vajragada Raju

Marisa Srinivasa Rao Vs Raghumahanthi Maniraju Kumari

Poojari Bhuvaneshwara Reddy Vs Poojari Sidda Reddy

Pittu Jayalakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Battu Venkata Ramaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh