HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5152 OF 2011 DATED 30TH NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Nakka Venkata Rao …….Petitioner and Nakka Satyanarayana (died) and ors …… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5152 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is ﬁled aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2011 whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem dismissed I.A.No.1627 of 2009 in O.S.No. 225 of 2006 ﬁled by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC seeking to club the suit in O.S.No. 225 of 2006 with O.S.No. 271 of 2008 pending on the ﬁle of the Court below. Heard. Perused the case file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence in both the suits is common and that the plea of the parties in both the suits is also one and the same. He further submitted that clubbing of both the suits will avoid conﬂicting of judgments and multiplicity of proceedings on the litigation. Admittedly, the respondents herein ﬁled O.S.No. 225 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of the alleged lease/rents amount on the immovable property i.e. Rice Mill at Pentapadu. The petitioner/defendant is contesting the said suit alleging that the said rice mill is a joint family property and lease is a benami in his name. In the said suit evidence of respondents/plaintiﬀs was closed on 21.07.2009 and the same is posted for the evidence of the petitioner/defendant. At this stage, the petitioner ﬁled the impugned application seeking to club the suit in O.S.No. 271 of 2008 ﬁled by him on the ﬁle of the same Court, i.e. Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for partition of the suit property—Rice Mill and allot his share and for possession, with the subject suit, i.e. O.S.No. 225 of 2006. The material on record would disclose that after the closure of evidence of the respondents/plaintiﬀs, the suit was posted for the evidence of the petitioner/defendant and the petitioner/defendant also ﬁled his chief-examination aﬃdavit on 3.8.2009 and thereafter the suit was posted for his cross- examination. At this stage the petitioner/defendant ﬁled the subject application. The Court below considering the stage of the present suit and the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No. 271 of 2008, which was ﬁled by the petitioner for partition of the subject suit property, rightly held that clubbing both the suits at this stage would certainly cause prejudice to the evidence of the respondents/plaintiﬀs in as much as the nature of evidence in both the suits is diﬀerent and distinct. The subject matter of the suit was ﬁled in the year 2006 by the respondents herein and the petitioner ﬁled the suit in the year 2008 and nothing prevented the petitioner herein to ﬁle the application seeking clubbing of both the suits in the year 2008 or immediately thereafter. But, the subject petition was ﬁled in the year 2009 only for the reasons best known to him. Viewed thus I do not see any illegality or inﬁrmity in the order under revision warranting inference in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 30TH NOVEMBER, 2011. Msnro