NEDUNOORI SWAMY Vs. GANTA LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two second appeals and civil revision petition are amenable to a conjoined disposal. Hence, this common judgment. O.S.No.692 of 2005 was filed by the appellant in these second appeals/petitioner in the civil revision petition, while O.S.No.1129 of 2005 was filed by the other side. The two suits were filed by the respective parties seeking a permanent injunction against the opposite party. However, the suit schedule properties in the two suits were different. In O.S.No.692 of 2005, the injunction sought was in respect of Ac.2 -10 guntas of agricultural dry land in Sy.No.703 of Mucharla Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, while O.S.No.1129 of 2005 pertained to an extent of Ac. 3 -35 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.No.704/1 of Mucharla Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. The boundaries of the suit schedule properties as set out in the plaints were also different. These two suits were filed before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. By common judgment dated 29.07.2013, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.692 of 2005 and dismissed O.S.No.1129 of 2005.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the respondents before this Court filed appeals in A.S.No.78 of 2013 (arising out of O.S.No.692 of 2005) and A.S.No.79 of 2013 (arising out of O.S.No.1129 of 2005) before the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. They also filed I.A.No.1469 of 2014 in A.S.No.78 of 2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking to adduce additional documentary evidence. By a separate order dated 12.09.2014 passed in I.A.No.1469 of 2014 in A.S.No.78 of 2013, the lower appellate Court allowed the petition and received the document in evidence. Thereafter, by common judgment dated 22.09.2014, the lower appellate Court allowed both the appeals, dismissing O.S.No.692 of 2005 and decreeing O.S.No.1129 of 2005. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent in both the appeals before the lower appellate Court is before this Court in second appeal. He also filed CRP No.4093 of 2014 against the order passed by the lower appellate Court in I.A.No.1469 of 2014 in A.S.No.78 of 2013.

(3.) HAVING heard Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant in the second appeals/petitioner in the civil revision petition, and Sri B.Ranganatha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents in all the three cases, this Court is of the opinion that the matters can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.