M S ANJAIAH Vs. N RAJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T. Ramulu the counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri J. Kanakayya the counsel representing the respondents. The Civil Revision Petition was filed along with an application for condonation of delay of one day and the delay was condoned and the matter is coming up for admission. At the stage of admission both the counsel requested that the main civil revision petition itself may be disposed of, for the reason, if the matter is delayed the disposal of the suits will also be delayed. In view of the said representation made by both the counsel, at the stage of admission, the civil revision petition itself is being finally disposed of.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner, the defendant in O.S.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet, aggrieved by an order dated 11-9-2002 which was made on a memo filed in O.S.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet, by the counsel for the petitioner. A memo was filed in O.S.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet on the ground that the suit claim in O.S.No.4 of 2002 and the suit claim in O.S.No.5 of 2002 are connected and an issue also was framed, accordingly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it is necessary to club O.S.No.5 of 2002 with O.S.No.4 of 2002 for disposal. As per law, the learned Judge had not permitted common trial of O.S.No.4 of 2002 and O.S.No.5 of 2002 and had rejected the memo on the ground that the causes of action in both the suits are not one and the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) Sri T.Ramulu, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had submitted that in fitness of things and in the interest of both the parties, in fact joint memo could have been filed for disposal of both the suits even by a common judgment, in view of the defence taken by the petitioner/defendant in both the suits. The learned counsel also had taken me through the respective pleadings of the parties, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in both the suits and also written statements filed by defendant in both the suits. The learned counsel further submitted that consolidation of suits, ordering joint trial or clubbing of the suits all these will be done keeping in view the convenience of the parties depending upon the parties to the litigation, subject matter of the litigation, nature of the defence raised in the suits and keeping in view the issues which had been settled. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet could have permitted both the matters to be tried and disposed of, if necessary, even by delivering a common judgment. Per contra, Sri J. Kanakayya, the counsel representing the respondents had pointed out that there are two plaintiffs in one suit and there is only one plaintiff in the other suit and apart from this, the documents relied on in both the suits are different and the causes of action also are different. The learned counsel also submitted that in one suit already arguments had been heard and the other suit is at the stage of recording evidence. Hence the rejection of memo by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet is well justified. The learned counsel also further pointed out that this is not a case of a joint memo being filed by consent of the parties and this practice of filing a memo for clubbing suits is not contemplated by law and this practice has to be deprecated. The learned counsel further pointed out that the rejection of memo is on the ground that causes of action are different and hence the impugned order cannot be faulted on any ground, whatsoever. While concluding his submissions the learned counsel also had brought to my notice that the counsel representing the respective parties conducting trial had agreed that both the suits may be tried and disposed of independently and simultaneously. Heard both the counsel and also perused the material available on record.