T.K. MAHESH Vs. CH. YADAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 31 -08 -2012, in I.A. No. 537 of 2012 in O.S. No. 253 of 1994, on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

(2.) THE case involves a long history. To put it briefly, the petitioner and the respondent filed their respective suits for injunction simplicitor against each other in the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'the II AJCJ Court'). While the suit filed by the petitioner was registered as O.S. No. 253 of 1994, the suit filed by the respondent was registered as O.S. No. 1258 of 1998. Pending those suits, the respondent has filed LGOP. No. 210 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, (for short 'the District Court') against the petitioner under the provisions of the A.P.L. and Grabbing Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act'). Pending the LGOP, the respondent has filed I.A. No. 537 of 2001 for transfer of both the suits from the II AJCJ Court to the District Court for being tried along with the LGOP. The said application was allowed by the District Court, as a result of which, both the suits were transferred to the District Court and renumbered as O.S. Nos. 44 and 45 of 2003. Before further evidence was recorded by the District Court, an order was passed, on 11.02.2004, in LGOP No. 210 of 2010, which reads as under:

(3.) THIS Court does not have the advantage of reading Order, dated 18 -01 -2005, in LGOP No. 210 of 2000 as the same is not made available by either party. However, both the learned Counsel conceded that no direction was given by the District Court to the II AJCJ Court for recording fresh evidence. The petitioner, thereafter, filed I.A. No. 537 of 2012 for receiving certified copies of the evidence relating to cross -examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and R.Ws. 1 and 2 recorded by the learned Principal District Judge in the common trial. In support of the said application, the petitioner pleaded that as common evidence was adduced in all the three cases, the parties are bound by the same evidence and that the suits need to be disposed of on the basis of such evidence.