The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUPetitioners (Plaintiff) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all fiat Proceedings in O.S.No.82of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge - Cum-Assistant Session Judge Huzurabad pending of Disposal of CRp. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Kankanala Yella Reddy, aged about 55 years, S/o.Late Malla Reddy, occupation. Agriculture, R/o. Ellanthakuhta Village, Jam m ikunta Mdndal, Karimnagar District ... Petitioner/ Respondent AND

1. Katangr-rri Vimala Devi (died), Karimnagar 2. Katanguri Rama Krishna Reddy, aged about 61 years, S/o.Late Janardhan Reddy, Ellanthakunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.

3. [atanguri surender Reddy, aged about 58 years, s/o.t-ate Janardhan Reddy, Ellanthakunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District ...Respondents/ Revision Petitioners Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ihe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in lA No 112025, in CRP No 178712025 dated 1310612025 and dismiss the CRP as devoid of merits and substance, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P DEVENDER The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION N No.l 202s ORDER This civil revision petition is filed assailing the propriety of the decree and order dared 8-4-2025 in I.A.No.39 of 2025 in o.s.No. 82 of 2019 on the file of Senior civil Judge cum Assistant Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

2. I have heard Mr.M.N.Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Devender, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent, moved an interlocutory application seeking the fiaming of additional issues for trial. The trial court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been fited.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent instituted a suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction, whereas the revision petitioner has filed a separate suit 2 seeking a cleclaration of title in respect of the very' same property. At the instance of the revision petitioner, the respondent's suit was transferred to the file of the present court to be triecl along with the petitioner's suit. However, the trial court is presently proceeding to conduct simultaneous but separate trials of the rnatters. It is contended that, in such circumstances, framing issues relating to title in the injunction suit would enable the court to comprehensively adjudicate the entire dispute. According to the petitioner, the trial court failed to appreciate this aspect and dismissed tlie application. while this revision petition formally challenges the impugned order, counsel urges that, in the interest of justice, dirccting a joint trial of the suits would effectively address the grievance.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly admits that suits, the one filed by the respondent and the one filed by the revision petitioner pertain to the same property. Although supporting the impugned order, counsel for the respondent raised no specific objection to the conduct of a joint trial. 3

6. I have carefully perused the material available on record.

7. Upon due consideration, it is evident that the suit filed by the revision petitioner (o.S. No. 23 of 2018) seeks a declaration of title, while the respondent's suit (O.S. No. 82 of 2019) seeks a decree of perpetual injunction. Both suits concern the same property, and the issues arising therein are inextricably interconnected. [n such a situation, conducting separate trials would be an unnecessary procedural exercise, leading to duplication of proceedings, avoidable consumption ofjudicial time, and the potential for inconsistent findings.

8. A joint trial, by contrast, would enable the court to t \ adjudicate all disputes between the parties in a single, cohesive proceeding, thereby ensuring a compr€hensive and conclusive determination of all issues in controversy. E

9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, although the revision petition was initially filed to challenge an order recasting the issues, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners confined the relief sought to a direction 4 for conducting a joint trial so as to ensure the complete and effective resolution of the disputes.

10. [n view ol'the fbregoing, this Court finds it just and proper to dispose of the present Civil Revision Petition with a direction to the triat court to conduct a joint trial of O.S. No. 23 of 2018 and O.S. No. 82 of 20t9, thereby securing a comprehensive adjudication of all matters in controversy. I l. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stantls disposed of in the above terms Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ASS*rAi?'iHS8?Hil Note: This Order is amended as per Court order dated 23.10.2b25 in .Paragraph No. Z replacingtre O.S No. 82 of 2019 with O.S. irto.-Zi of 2018 and O.S No. 1 13 of 20i6 with O.S. No. 82 of Z0tg lnd in lagOr.aOh No. 10 reptacinq- tne O.S. No. 82 of ZOtg with O.B f.fo. -tiS 23 of 2018 and O.S No. 2016 with O S No. Az or iotd.'- This order substitutes the earlier order dispatched on 16.09.2025. SD/. U.SUDHA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1 ' The senior civir 2. one CC to Sri MN.r.r5,r.irrn*, niijoyraqygertiitbnjCf * rv, v\ 3. one cc to sri p.Der;a;;; ffio"cli6'fopiJCI rv rvr vlel 4. Two CD Copies .J.u-{oe -cum-Assistant. session Judge Huzurabad I I HIGH COURT D 25 DATED :2311012025 :1 AMENDED ORDER CRP.No.1787 ot Z02S { ilE $la ?TTOTffi t * DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION b )_b Ir &\ \