Dismissed

Nallabothula Vijaya Kumar, v. a.John Sundaram

Telangana HC18 Nov 2011CRP/4533/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing joint trial of two suits. The revision petitioner failed to file a counter despite opportunity. Since counsel agreed to clubbing, the High Court directed the trial court to conduct a joint trial and permitted the petitioner to file an additional affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court is directed to club both suits and conduct joint trial. The revision petitioner is permitted to file an additional affidavit in lieu of chief examination.

Nallabothula Vijaya Kumar, Vs a.John Sundaram — Partition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4533 of 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nallabothula Vijaya Kumar S/o Satyanarayana, 39 years, R/o Door No.20-1-98, Maruthi nagar, Korlagunta,Tirupathi.

¶9

...Petitioner-Respondent No.1-Plaintiff And

¶10

1.A.John Sundaram, S/o Dr.A.Paramanandam, 51 years, Pachikapalem Harijanawada, Pachikapalam village, Vedurukuppam, Chittoor District and 6 others.

¶11

.. Respondent-petitioner-D1

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶13

C.R.P.No.4533 of 2011

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District dated 23.09.2011 allowing I.A.No.587 of 2011 in O.S.No.303 of 2006 filed by the 1^st defendant, who is the 1^st respondent herein.

¶16

Petitioner herein filed the aforesaid suit, O.S.No.303 of 2006 against the respondents herein for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents herein contested the said suit by filing written statement. In the said suit, evidence of the petitioner was over and the suit is coming up for cross-examination of the 1^st respondent herein.

¶17

The 1^st respondent herein also filed a suit, O.S.No.283 of 2006 against respondents 5 to 7 herein and others for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶18

While so, the 1^st respondent herein filed the present I.A.No.587 of 2011 seeking to order joint trial of the aforesaid suits. The trial Court, on consideration of the entire material available on record, allowed the said application. It is against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner herein.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the suits are distinct and separate and as such both the suits cannot be clubbed together for joint trial. He further submits that the trial in O.S.No.303 of 2006 has already begun and the said suit is posted for cross-examination of D.W.1, whereas O.S.No.283 of 2006 is still at the inception and issues are also not framed.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent, while supporting the impugned order of the trial Court, contends that the schedule properties and the persons claiming interest in both the suits are one and the same, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of judgments, it is very much essential to club both the suits and conduct joint trial.

¶21

I have perused the order under revision and the material available on record.

¶22

In the present application, neither the revision petitioner herein nor any other respondent in the said petition, has chosen to file counter in spite of granting sufficient opportunity to them and, therefore, the trial Court had no other option except to forfeit their right to file counter, and eventually the trial Court passed the impugned order. The revision petitioner herein failed to give any reason, much less valid reason, for not filing counter in the I.A. except stating that he could not file the counter owing to various reasons.

¶23

However, both the learned Counsel agreed for clubbing the suit, O.S.No.283 of 2006 filed by the 1^st respondent herein with O.S.No.303 of 2006 filed by the revision petitioner, and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit in lieu of chiefexamination.

¶24

In view of the above stand taken by the Counsel, there is no need to interfere with the order under revision. The trial Court is directed to club both the suits and conduct joint trial. The revision petitioner is also permitted to file an additional affidavit in lieu of chiefexamination and thereafter the respondents shall crossexamine him.

¶25

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶26

______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶27

18.11.2011 Gsn.

Nallabothula Vijaya Kumar, v. a.John Sundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallabothula Vijaya Kumar, v. a.John Sundaram

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

Sri Kunchala C. Balalji Vs Smt Kunchala Vishnu Priya

M.Venkataramana Vs Sri Love Agarwal

Mr.a.C.Krishnaswamy Vs Mr.C.Varadarajn

Achanta Dhana Lakshmi Vs Sri K.Purushotham

Smt. Kompella Padmavathi Vs Burugubai Mangaiah

Ghouse Mohiddin Saheb , Pullur Saheb Vs P.Subhan Khan