Smt. P. Nagarani Vs Sri Prodduturi Ravikumar

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 918 OF 2025

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 04-09-2024 passed in |.A.No.160 of 2024 in OS.No.246 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Xl Additional District & Sessions Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. P. NAGARANI, W/O LATE SRI P CHANDRAIAH, Aged about 59^years, Occ: House Wife,

¶10

SRI P.SRIKANTH, S/o LATE SRI P.CHANDRAIAH, Aged about 45^years, Occ: Business

¶11

Sri P.Sridhar, S/o Late Sri P.Chandraiah, Aged about 40^years, Occ. Business,

¶12

Sri P.Sreeman, S/o Late Sri P.Chandraiah, Aged bout 39^years, Occ. Business.

¶13

Sri P.Srinivas, S/o Late Sri P.Chandraiah, Aged about 36^{years, Occ.} Business.

¶14

All are R/o H.No.17-1-382N12127, Vaishali Nagar, Champapet, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Respondents No.8 to¹ 2

¶15

AND '

¶16

Sri Prodduturl Ravikumar, S/o Sri P.Narsimhulu, aged about 54^years, Occ. Business, Rio H.No.9-7-7414, Road No.1, Maruthi Nagar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad-500059.

¶17

SRI P. NARSIMULU, S/O SRI CHANDRAIH, DIED PER^LRS

¶18

Sri Prodduturi Dilip Kumar, S/o Sri P.Narsimhulu, Aged^{about 52 years,Occ.} Business, R/o H.No.9-7-15l4, Road No. 4, Yadagirinagar, Sanatosh^Nagar, Hyderabad-500059

¶19

Sri P. Anand Kumar, S/o Sri P.Narsimulu, Aged 52^{years, occ. BusinessRio} H.No.9-7-7414, Maruthi Nagar, Road No. 1, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad-S9.

¶20

Sri P. Lingaiah, S/o Sri P.Narsimulu, Aged 68^{years,Occ. Business,Rl/o} H.No.2-7, Maheshwaram Vil & Mdl, Rangareddy Dist.

¶21

Sri P. PRABHAKAR, S/o Sri P.Narsimulu, Aged^{65 years, occ. BusinessR/o} H.No.9-7-7414, Maruthi Nagar, Road No,^'1 , Santhosh^{Nagar, Hyderabad-59.}

¶22

SRI CHANDRAIH, S/O SRI P. NARSIMULU, DIED PER^{LRS PETITIONERS}

¶23

B Sri P. Suryaprakash, S/o Sri P.Narsimulu, Aged 35 year ., occ. Govt. Service R/o H.No.9-7-74l4, Maruthi Nagar, Road No. 1, Santhor; Nagar, Hyderabad59

¶24

9 Smt V Vijaya Laxmi, Wo Sri V.Krishnaiah D/o Sri t' \arsimulu, aged 66 years, Occ House Wife, R/o H.No.9-7-15l3, Yadagiri Ne I ar, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶25

10.Smt. Y. ARUNA, W/o LAXMINARAYANA DIED PER .RS RESPONDENT NO 11 TO 14

¶26

1l Sri Y.VENUGOPAL, S/O. LAXMINARAYANA AND LA't -^{Y ARUNA,AGED} 47 YEARS, OCC, BUSINESS.

¶27

12.SRI Y ESHWAR RAO, S/O. LAXMINARAYANA AND U, E Y ARUNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE ETMPLOYEE

¶28

13.SMT. Y VAMSHI PRIYA, W/O SRIDHAR D/O LA)I 4INARAYANA AND LAATE Y ARUNA, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS

¶29

14.SRI Y HARISH, SiO LAXMINARAYANA AND LATE^'/ ARUNA, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE. RESPONDENT NO 11 TO 14 ARE R/O H.NO.4-1.7€, HANUMAN TEKDI, ABIDS, HYDERABAD.

¶30

...RESPONDENT/PLAIl{ TIFF/DEFENDANTS

¶31

LA. NO: 1OF 2025

¶32

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circunr tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may trr pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the orders in 1.A.No,160 cf 2024 in O.S.No.246 of 2014 on the file of Xl Addl. District and Session Judge, Fl rnga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad dated. 04.09.2024, pending disposal of t) lP No. of 2025.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri K. Sreenivas

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. T. Dhanalakshmi

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'ESHWAR RAO

¶39

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.918 OF 2025

¶40

DATE: 05.02.2026

¶41

Between:

¶42

Smt. P. Nagarani and others

¶43

...Petitioners

¶44

AND

¶45

Sri Prodduturi Ravi Kumar and others.

¶46

...Respondents

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 04.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.160 of 2024 in O.S.No.246 of 2014 by the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short'trial Court'), whereby, the application filed by the petitioners seeking to club O.S.No.246 of 20t4 and O.S.No.936 of 2019, for the purpose of conducting a joint trial, was dismissed.

¶49

Heard Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms.T.Dhanalakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶50

2

¶51

Brief facts of the case are that, I.A.No.16( of 2024 was filed by the petitioners/defendants Nos.B to 12, s :eking to club O.S.No.246 of 2Ot4 and O.S.No.936 of 2019, for he purpose of conducting a joint trial. The father of petir 'oner^namely Mr. P.Chandraiah is defendant No.6 and respond1t Nos.1, 3 to 10 are the own brothers and sisters, being tt e children of Mr. P.Narasimhulu i.e., respondent No.2/det rndant No.1. Respondent No.2 herein is the original owner , ,f agricultural land called "ISUKABAYI LAND,, admeasuring A( .3.33 gts. in Sy.No.342, Ac.2.L9 gts. in Sy.No.343, Ac .11 gts. in Sy.No.344, Ac.0.30 gts. in Sy.No.345, Ac. ).09 gts in Sy.No.374, Ac.0.10 gts. in Sy.No.375, Ac.( .31 gts. in Sy.No.349lAA and Ac.0.33 gts in Sy.Nc, 350, totally admeasuring Ac.10.16 gts. situated at Maheshur, ram Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter r :ferred to as 'suit schedule property').

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits I hat a suit for partition in respect of the suit schedule ;t .operty vide O.S.No.246 of 2OL4 was filed and another suit vitt I O.S.No.936 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners herein setking specific performance of the Agreement, dated 1g.11.2C(1. Both the suits were sought to be clubbed vide I.A.No.160 tf 2024, but

¶53

/

¶54

1

¶55

the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the suit schedule properties in both the suits are one and the same, and the joint trial of both the suits would be advantageous for objective and just decisions of the matters, as they are interrelated and connected with one another. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order.

¶56

A perusal of the record shows that the trial Court, while dismissing the application in I.A.No.160 of 2024 in O.S.No.246 of 2014 by the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge,

¶57

L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, observed as under:

¶58

"It is quite obvious even if the trial is held separately and separate judgments gets rendered, it does not lead to conflicting judgments and it does not cause any prejudice as such to neither of the parties. Rather clubbing of the suits does not in any manner would be advantageous to neither of the parties nor does it facilitate this Court for earlier disposal of the suit, nor would be advantageous for objective and just decision of the subject matter there the scope and nature of enquire in both the suits is distinct and different. So viewed from any of the stand points, there does not seem any element or ground for clubbing of the suits for the purpose of joint trial. Accordingly petition is devoid of merit and force and is liable to be dismissed."

¶59

4

¶60

The trial Court duly considered the a( vantages and disadvantages of clubbing the suits, as well as :^-oceeding with them separately. Upon such consideration, it riq htly concluded that clubbing the suits in any manner would neit rer benefit the parties nor facilitate the expeditious disposal of t 1e cases. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegalit^r or infirmity.

¶61

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court in I.A.No. 60 of 2024 in O.S.No.246 of 2074 dated 04.09.2024 by lte learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, L.B. Naga' Ranga Reddy District. However, it is made clear that both < vil suits shall proceed simultaneously, but with separate trials There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

Miscellaneous applications, if any pendirr t, shall stand

¶63

closed.

¶64

SD/- I1. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASS I JTANT REGISTRAR

¶65

//TRUE COPY//

¶66

\ secrtou oFFrcER

¶67

To,