T. USHASRI Vs. R.J. LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.S No. 202 of 2005 in the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against their daughter, the 1st petitioner; son -in -law, the 2nd petitioner and the Jubilee Hills Cooperative Society, the 3rd respondent herein for the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and to cancel the sale deed dated 15 -09 -1987 executed in favour of the 1st petitioner, by declaring it as void. The 4th respondent herein, the son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.S No. 130 of 2006 against his parents, his sisters i.e., the 1st petitioner and respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for partition and separate possession of that very item of the property. Both the suits were clubbed. The evidence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was recorded in O.S No. 202 of 2005. When the necessity has arisen for recording of further evidence, the trial Court passed an order dated 04 -03 -2011 directing that the evidence of plaintiff in O.S No. 130 of 2006 i.e., the 4th respondent shall be recorded and for that purpose, the suits were adjourned to 14 -03 -2011. However, on 16 -03 -2011, the trial Court modified order dated 04 -03 -2011 and directed that the defendants in O.S No. 202 of 2005 i.e, the petitioners herein shall commence their evidence. The said order is challenged in this revision.

(2.) SRI M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent i.e., the plaintiff in O.S No. 130 of 2006 is sailing with his parents -respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who filed O.S No. 202 of 2005 and realising that there is commonality not only in the parties, but also the schedule property, both the suits were clubbed; and it is but natural that the parties having common interest, irrespective of their place in the cause title of the respective suits, must be required to depose on one side; and as a matter of fact, the trial Court took such a view in its order dated 04 -03 -2011. He contends that the order dated 16 -03 -2011 passed by the trial Court, modifying its earlier order dated 04 -03 -2011, cannot be sustained either on substantive or procedural basics. He submits that the course of action indicated by the trial Court through the order under revision would enable the 4th respondent to fill the lacunae, if any, in the evidence of his parents -respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or to otherwise weaken the case of the petitioners.

(3.) THE brief purport of two suits has been furnished in the preceding paragraphs. While respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of their right in respect of the entire suit schedule property and for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the 1st respondent, their son -the 4th respondent filed the suit for partition. There is indeed overlapping of claims in both the suits and obviously, for that reason, they were clubbed.