BADINENI MUNENNA Vs. VEERAMAREDDY LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court ordered notice before admission in these Civil Revision Petitions on 30. 06. 2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period and it was subsequently extended for a further limited period.

(2.) SRI M. Subba Reddy, entered appearance on behalf of respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions. Smt Abburi prasanna Lakshmi, learned counsel representing petitioner/defendant in both the civil Revision Petitions would maintain that both the suits are based on the strength of two different promissory notes. One filed by the wife and another filed by the husband and in view of the commonality of the defence and also commonality of the witnesses to be examined, it would be just and proper if both the suits are clubbed and consolidated, but however, the learned Junior civil Judge, Banaganapalle without appreciating the facts and circumstances in proper perspective, dismissed the said application. The learned counsel also would maintain that even if the consolidation of both the suits to be permitted, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs in these suits i. e. , wife and husband. The counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. M/s Jaypee rewa Cement AIR 2004 SC 1687 = 2004 (3) ALT 1. 2, 1. 3 (DNSC ).

(3.) PER contra, Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents in both these Civil Revision Petitions would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Junior Civil judge, Banaganapalle, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. The counsel also would maintain that it may be true that the plaintiff in one suit is the wife and plaintiff in another suit is the husband, by that itself, it cannot be said that the questions to be decided would be common in both the suits. In the light of peculiar facts and circumstances, especially, in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Junior Civil Judge, banaganapalle, these are not fit matters to be interfered with, and hence the Civil revision Petitions are to be dismissed.