Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
T.K.Mahesh vs Ch.Yadaiah on 31 July, 2014
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
The Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5416 of 2012 31-07-2014 T.K.MaheshPetitioner Ch.Yadaiah.....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner:Mr.Unnam Muralidhar Rao Counsel for the respondent:Mr.Krishna Kishore Kovvuri for Mr.N.Siva Reddy <Gist:
>Head Note ?Cases referred:
2004 (1) Decisions Today (AP) 35 The Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5416 of 2012 Dated 31.07.2014 The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 31-08-2012, in IA.No.537 of 2012 in OS.No.253 of 1994, on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
The case involves a long history. To put it briefly, the petitioner and the respondent filed their respective suits for injunction simplicitor against each other in the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short the II AJCJ Court). While the suit filed by the petitioner was registered as OS.No.253 of 1994, the suit filed by the respondent was registered as OS.No.1258 of 1998. Pending those suits, the respondent has filed LGOP.No.210 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, (for short the District Court) against the petitioner under the provisions of the A.P.Land Grabbing Act, 1982 (for short the Act). Pending the LGOP, the respondent has filed IA.No.537 of 2001 for transfer of both the suits from the II AJCJ Court to the District Court for being tried along with the LGOP. The said application was allowed by the District Court, as a result of which, both the suits were transferred to the District Court and renumbered as OS.Nos.44 and 45 of 2003. Before further evidence was recorded by the District Court, an order was passed, on 11.02.2004, in LGOP No.210 of 2010, which reads as under:
Memo filed by both parties.
OS.No.44 of 2003 and 45 of 2003 are clubbed with this OP. Evidence is (sic) recorded in this OP will be treated as evidence of other OS. PW.1 examined. Ex.A.1 to A.3 marked. For further evidence 02-03-2004.
Thereafter, the evidence was let in by both parties. The Principal District Judge vide his Order, dated 18-01-2005, has dismissed LGOP No.210 of 2000 as not maintainable by following the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. Special Court constituted under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad and others , wherein it was held that under the Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases filed on the allegation of attempt to grab land. Pursuant to the dismissal of the said LGOP, the District Court has sent back both the suits to the II AJCJ Court for disposal on merits.
This Court does not have the advantage of reading Order, dated 18-01-2005, in LGOP No.210 of 2000 as the same is not made available by either party. However, both the learned Counsel conceded that no direction was given by the District Court to the II AJCJ Court for recording fresh evidence. The petitioner, thereafter, filed IA.No.537 of 2012 for receiving certified copies of the evidence relating to cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 and 2 recorded by the learned Principal District Judge in the common trial. In support of the said application, the petitioner pleaded that as common evidence was adduced in all the three cases, the parties are bound by the same evidence and that the suits need to be disposed of on the basis of such evidence.
The respondent resisted the said application on the ground that as the evidence was recorded in the LGOP, which was based on a different cause of action from the one based on which the two suits were filed, and that LGOP having been dismissed as not maintainable, such an evidence has no relevance for disposal of the suits. The lower Court has accepted the plea of the respondent and dismissed the IA filed by the petitioner.
In my opinion, the lower Court has not made a proper approach in dealing with the application filed by the petitioner. It has erroneously held that the evidence recorded in LGOP, which was based on a different cause of action from the one based on which the suits were filed and was dismissed as not maintainable, cannot be relied on by the parties to the suit. The lower Court has overlooked the fact that the two suits were clubbed with the LGOP and common evidence was recorded by a specific order passed on 11.02.2004, which is reproduced herein before. The District Court has categorically observed that the evidence recorded in the LGOP will be treated as evidence in both the suits. It is an admitted fact that before the suits were made over to the II AJCJ Court, the evidence of both sides was completely let in and the same was closed. In such circumstances, the evidence recorded in LGOP shall form integral part of the suits and the same shall be disposed of on the basis of that evidence only. The lower Court has committed a serious error in believing that it has to conduct a fresh trial ignoring the evidence already recorded by the District Court. I do not find any reason for the lower Court to form such an opinion. Even if the suits and the LGOP were based on different causes of action, the fact remained that in view of the commonality among all the three cases, they were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded. Such evidence, as rightly pleaded by the petitioner, shall form the basis for disposal of the suits and the question of the lower Court conducting a fresh trial would not arise. Such a contingency would have arisen, if the District Court itself, while making over the suits to the II AJCJ Court, has given any direction as such. As observed herein before, no such direction appeared to have been given by the District Court.
In the above facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The II AJCJ Court is directed to dispose of the suits based on the evidence already recorded in LGOP.No.210 of 2000 and without recording fresh evidence.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.7166 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 31st July, 2014