THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4383 of 2010 DT.09.09.2011 Between: Bandla Narayana s/o Panaiah & Ors … Petitioners And Kommineni Srinivasa Rao s/o Seethaiah … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4383 of 2010 O R D E R: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in rejecting the Memo filed by the petitioners herein, the defendants in the Suit O.S.No.171 of 2007 for clubbing the said suit along with suit O.S.No.225 of 2007 filed by the petitioners herein for joint trial of both the suits. The Memo filed by the petitioners herein as defendants in O.S.No.171 of 2007 reads as follows: “It is submitted that the plaintiff herein filed a suit O.S.No.171/2007 for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs filed a suit O.S.No.225/2007 on the file of the Hon’ble Court against the defendant for specific performance and also for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. In both the suits schedule property is one and the same. The point to be decided in both the suit are also same. If independently trial was conducted in both the suits, there is possibility of conflict of judgments. So in the interest of Justice, it is better to pass common judgment in O.S.No.171/2007 and O.S.No.225 of 2007. As the suit O.S.No.225/2007 is an elaborate suit, evidence may be recorded in O.S.No.225/2007. The evidence recorded in O.S.No.225/2007 may be evidence in O.S.No.171/2007 and common judgment may be passed in both the suits.” The issues in O.S.No.171 of 2007 seeking injunction are as follows: 1. Whether the plaint schedule property was sold by the plaintiff to D-1 under possessory agreement of sale dated 2-6-1996 and delivered possession of plaint schedule to D-1 as contended by defendants or not? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, etc from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property with costs or not? 3. To what relief? The issues in the suit O.S.No.225 of 2007 filed by the petitioners herein seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale are as follows: 1. Whether the posessory agreement of sale executed dated 2-6-1996 is forged and fabricated document as contended by defendant or not? 2. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is entitled for decree directing the Defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff in pursuance of the possesory agreement of sale dt. 2-6-1996 failing which to execute the same by this court at the expenses of 1st plaintiff or not? 3. Whether the 2nd plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men etc., from interfering with 2nd plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of schedule property with costs or not? 4. To what relief? It appears that the counsel appearing for the respondent opposed for clubbing of both the suits and accordingly the learned Judge made the following order: “Heard. Plaintiff counsel opposed to club this suit in O.S.No.225/2007 on the file of this Court to try jointly. Hence, this memo is rejected.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the said order is without assigning any reasons and merely because the plaintiff in O.S.No.171 of 2007 opposed, it cannot constitute a ground for rejection. Therefore, the Court below ought to have passed a reasoned order by considering the merits of the case. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-8-2010 made in O.S.No.171 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass a reasoned order, on merits, after hearing both the parties. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 09.09.2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4383 of 2010 DATE: 09.09.2011