HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1014 OF 2011 . DATED 29th July, 2011 BETWEEN Nimmala Parasuramudu …Petitioner And Nimmala Ramalakshmi and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1014 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard both sides. Perused the case file. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2011 whereunder and whereby the learned Principal District Judge dismissed Tr.O.P.No. 962 of 2010 filed by the petitioner under Section 24 CPC seeking to withdraw AS.No. 243 of 2006 from the file of the II Additional Districkt Judge, West Godavari District, at Eluru and transfer the same to the file of the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, at Eluru, for hearing and disposal along with AS.No. 204 of 2009 pending on his file. The first respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No. 50 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem against the petitioner and the second respondent for recovery of possession of the land to an extent of Ac.2.43 cents in RS.No. 82/2 and 63 of Timmaraogudem village, contending that the suit property is a joint family property and liable for partition. The said suit was decreed on 24.7.2006, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal in AS.No. 243 of 2006, which is pending adjudication on the file of the learned II Additional Districkt Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. Whereas the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No. 1 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for partition of the properties against the petitioner and the first respondent and the said suit was decreed on 17.6.2009, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal in AS.No. 204 of 2009 and the same is pending adjudication on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari Distritct, at Eluru. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent herein filed an application in AS.No. 243 of 2006 to receive the judgment in O.S.No. 1 of 2001 as additional evidence and that the suit property in O.S.No. 50 of 2003 is the subject matter in both the suits. It is his further case that in as much as common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals, clubbing of both the appeals and disposal thereof by a common judgment would be just and essential for better appreciation of facts and contentions of both the parties. As can be seen from the record, the property covered by O.S.No. 50 of 2005 was shown as Item No.9 in the schedule in O.S.No. 1 of 2001, but later the said item was deleted from the suit claim at the instance of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) and consequently there was no decree for partition against the property claimed by the first respondent herein. In view of the same, the Court below rightly held that both the suits are not one and the same notwithstanding the fact that the parties to the suit are same. Further, the issue involved in both the suits is also different. Merely because the first respondent herein filed an application in AS.No. 243 of 2006 to receive the judgment in O.S.No. 1 of 2001 as additional evidence, it cannot be said that the suit property in O.S.No. 50 of 2003 is the subject matter in both the suits. Thus the learned judge rightly held that the subject matters of both the suits are entirely different from each other. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 29th JULY, 2011. Msnro