THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.C.C.A.Nos.46 OF 2004 AND 177 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Since these two appeals are connected with each other, as requested by the learned counsel on either side, they are taken up together for disposal. C.C.C.A.No.46 of 2004 is filed by the defendants aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2003 in O.S.No.30 of 2001 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court), in partly decreeing the suit with proportionate costs. C.C.C.A.No.177 of 2009 is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff aggrieved against the judgment and decree date 01.06.2009 in O.S.No.28 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in dismissing the suit filed under Order VII Rule 26 CPC to grant decree for an amount of Rs.1,33,08,882.88 ps along with interest at 18% per annum along with costs. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the entire material on record, it is seen that the disputes are between one and the same contractor and the reliefs arising there under. In O.S.No.30 of 2001 against which C.C.C.A.No.46 of 2004 is filed, which is a comprehensive one, the respondent-plaintiff in the said appeal sought for following reliefs. (a) For declaration declaring the proceedings of the 5th defendant in lr.No.DB/D-II/T-11/643 M dated 26.07.2000 as illegal, void, arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair and consequently direct the defendants to allow the plaintiff to proceed with work further and pay the amount as per current year rates; (b) For declaration that the proceedings of 5th defendant in Lr.No.557 M dated 30.06.2000 as illegal, void, arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair and consequently direct the defendants to allow the plaintiff to proceed with further work, and direct the defendants to pay the bills without any deduction; and (c) For declaration that the tender notice issued by the 4th defendant dated 27.08.2000 in tender Notice No.2 PAD/2000-2001, as illegal, void, arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair and consequently direct the defendants to allow the plaintiff to proceed with work further an pass such other order and orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and to award costs. Virtually, on a bare look at the reliefs as sought for, it shows that it is only a fairly temporary one and even it is a decree which is un- executable since no amounts or the claim can be granted whereas in O.S.No.28 of 2004 against which C.C.C.A.No.177 of 2009 is filed, the relief sought for is a decree for grant of Rs.1,33,08,882.88 ps, which pertains to various claims arising out of the said contract. However, the actual enquiry in regard to the various claims and entitlement thereto by the contractor has not been gone into. Further, unfortunately, both the suits were disposed of by two different Courts, which resulted in paradoxical situation. In spite of going into merits at this stage, since there is no enquiry, as suggested by the learned counsel on either side, we are of the view that both the suits can be clubbed together and disposed of after taking into consideration the reliefs mentioned and also the documents filed by both the sides. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The judgments dated 07.04.2003 and 01.06.2009 in C.C.C.A.Nos.46 of 2004 and 177 of 2009 respectively are set aside and the appeals are remitted back for fresh enquiry and disposal. O.S.No.30 of 2001 stands withdrawn from the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court), and transferred to the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to be tried and disposed of along with O.S.No.28 of 2004. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of both the appeals as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three {3} months after issuing notice and giving opportunity to both the sides. We leave it open to the parties to lead fresh evidence, if any. There shall be to order as to costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 25th October 2010 RRB