Badineni Munenna Vs. Veeramareddy Lakshmi Devi and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderp.s. narayana, j.1. this court ordered notice before admission in these civil revision petitions on 30.06.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period and it was subsequently extended for a further limited period.2. sri m. subba reddy, entered appearance on behalf of respondents in both the civil revision petitions. smt abburi prasanna lakshmi, learned counsel representing petitioner/defendant in both the civil revision petitions would maintain that both the suits are based on the strength of two different promissory notes. one filed by the wife and another filed by the husband and in view of the commonality of the defence and also commonality of the witnesses to be examined, it would be just and proper if both the suits are clubbed and consolidated, but however, the learned junior civil judge, banaganapalle without appreciating the facts and circumstances in proper perspective, dismissed the said application. the learned counsel also would maintain that even if the consolidation of both the suits to be permitted, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs in these suits i.e., wife and husband. the counsel also relied on the decision of the apex court in chitivalasa jute mills v. jaypee rewa cement : air 2004 sc 1687 : 2004 (3) alt 1.2, 1.3(dnsc).3. per contra, sri m. subba reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents in both these civil revision petitions would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned junior civil judge, banaganapalle, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. the counsel also would maintain that it may be true that the plaintiff in one suit is the wife and plaintiff in another suit is the husband, by that itself, it cannot be said that the questions to be decided would be common in both the suits. in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances, especially, in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned junior civil judge, banaganapalle, these are not fit matters to be interfered with, and hence the civil revision petitions are to be dismissed.4. heard the counsel on record and perused the respective stands taken by the parties and also the reasons recorded by the learned junior civil judge, banaganapalle.5. the fact that the suits had been instituted by two different plaintiffs, this aspect is not in controversy. further the fact that the plaintiff in one suit is wife and the plaintiff in another suit is husband, this fact also is not in serious controversy. no doubt, certain submissions had been made that the attestors being the same and also the defence being the same, it would be just and convenient if the both suits are clubbed.6. in chitivalasa jute mills v. jaypee rewa cement the apex court observed that the inherent power under section 151 of civil procedure code can be exercised for the purpose of consolidation of suits. no doubt, sri m. subba reddy. made certain submissions to the effect that the said decision in chitivalasa jute mills v. jaypee rewa cement is distinguishable on facts, since parties were same and suits had been filed, in the back drop of the said facts, the said decision had been given by the apex court and hence the same is not applicable. it may be true that on facts the said decision is distinguishable, but, however, in the light of the facts and circumstances, if clubbing or consolidation of the suits be permitted, no serious prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in the light of the nature of the defence which had been taken and also in view of the fact that the plaintiffs in both the suits being the wife and husband. in the light of the same, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the civil revision petitions are allowed. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Narayana, J.

1. This Court ordered notice before admission in these Civil Revision Petitions on 30.06.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period and it was subsequently extended for a further limited period.

2. Sri M. Subba Reddy, entered appearance on behalf of respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions. Smt Abburi Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Counsel representing petitioner/defendant in both the Civil Revision Petitions would maintain that both the suits are based on the strength of two different promissory notes. One filed by the wife and another filed by the husband and in view of the commonality of the defence and also commonality of the witnesses to be examined, it would be just and proper if both the suits are clubbed and consolidated, but however, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle without appreciating the facts and circumstances in proper perspective, dismissed the said application. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even if the consolidation of both the suits to be permitted, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs in these suits i.e., wife and husband. The counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement : AIR 2004 SC 1687 : 2004 (3) ALT 1.2, 1.3(DNSC).

3. Per contra, Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondents in both these Civil Revision Petitions would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. The counsel also would maintain that it may be true that the plaintiff in one suit is the wife and plaintiff in another suit is the husband, by that itself, it cannot be said that the questions to be decided would be common in both the suits. In the light of peculiar facts and circumstances, especially, in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle, these are not fit matters to be interfered with, and hence the Civil Revision Petitions are to be dismissed.

4. Heard the counsel on record and perused the respective stands taken by the parties and also the reasons recorded by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.

5. The fact that the suits had been instituted by two different plaintiffs, this aspect is not in controversy. Further the fact that the plaintiff in one suit is wife and the plaintiff in another suit is husband, this fact also is not in serious controversy. No doubt, certain submissions had been made that the attestors being the same and also the defence being the same, it would be just and convenient if the both suits are clubbed.

6. In Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement the Apex Court observed that the inherent power under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code can be exercised for the purpose of consolidation of suits. No doubt, Sri M. Subba Reddy. Made certain submissions to the effect that the said decision in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement is distinguishable on facts, since parties were same and suits had been filed, in the back drop of the said facts, the said decision had been given by the Apex Court and hence the same is not applicable. It may be true that on facts the said decision is distinguishable, but, however, in the light of the facts and circumstances, if clubbing or consolidation of the suits be permitted, no serious prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in the light of the nature of the defence which had been taken and also in view of the fact that the plaintiffs in both the suits being the wife and husband. In the light of the same, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.