Boddula Rajesham vs Mahmooda Begum and Others

G. Rohini, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8-9-2006 in I.A. No. 1142 of 2006 in O.S. No. 56 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

The Revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit which is filed by the respondents herein for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was contested by the defendant/Revision petitioner claiming that the suit property forms part of 585 sq.yards of land in Sy. No. 1347/C purchased by him under a Registered Sale Deed dated 18-11-1976 and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While the trial was under progress, the defendant/Revision petitioner filed a counter-claim on 21-11-2005 alleging that pending the suit the plaintiff had forcibly occupied the suit schedule property. Thus, he made a counterclaim for recovery of the possession of the property in question. The said counter-claim was dismissed by the Court below. Though the defendant/Revision petitioner preferred CRP. No. 1439 of 2006, the same was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the counter-claim was made much after filing of the written statement without seeking leave of the Court as required under law.

In the circumstances, the defendant/Revision petitioner filed a fresh suit being O.S. No. 147 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for recovery of possession of the property which is the subject-matter of O.S. No. 56 of 2000. In the meanwhile, the evidence in O.S. No. 56 of 2000 was completed and while the matter was coming up for hearing, the petitioner herein (defendant therein) filed I.A. No. 1142 of 2006 u/s 151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to club both the suits i.e., O.S. No. 147 of 2006 and O.S. No. 56 of 2000 for common trial. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 8-9-2006 which is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents.

Admittedly the subject-matter of both the suits is one and the same and the parties to both the suits are also common. As a matter of fact, cause of action for O.S. No. 147 of 2006 arose during the pendency of O.S. No. 56 of 2000 on account of the alleged dispossession. However, the request of the defendant/Revision Petitioner for clubbing the suits for joint trial was rejected by the Court below only on the ground that since O.S. No. 56 of 2000 is one of the identified matters in which the trial was already closed in the year 2005, the clubbing of the suits would unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

Having considered the entire material on record and having regard to the fact that the parties to both the suits are common and suit schedule property is also one and the same, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to decide both the matters together to avoid not only conflicting decisions but also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is true that the disposal of O.S. No. 56 of 2000 would be delayed, but clubbing of both the suits is essential to decide the rival claims effectively and it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to any of the parties by adopting such procedure.

Hence, the order under Revision is set aside and I.A. No. 1142 of 2006 is allowed with a direction to the Court below to decide both the suits together. It is made clear that in case the written statement is not filed in O.S. No. 147 of 2006, the same shall be filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter both the suits shall be disposed of together as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.