ORDER
1. Questioning the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur in IA No.821 of 1999 in OS
No.156 of 1995 wherein the Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to club OS 156 of 1995 and OS 239 of 1998 and to treat the evidence given by her in OS 156 of 1995 as evidence in the other suit, the present revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent.
3. From the pleading it is seen that initially one Pandla Chinna Pulluiah filed OS 156 of 1995 against the petitioner herein seeking the relief of title to the land ABCD and CDEF and for grant of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner (defendant therein) to remove constructions and encroachment made in CDEF portion of the land and sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. It is also the case of the petitioner herein that she initially filed a suit for the same relief against Pandla Chinna Pullaiah, respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the other suit. But for technical reasons she withdrew the same, and filed another suit OS No.239 of 1998 by including the Government also as party defendant claiming the same relief not only against the Pandla Chinna Pullaiah but also against the Government.
4. From this it is seen that the parties have set up title to the same land and fighting for their rights. If both the suits are allowed to be tried independently and different judgments are allowed to be pronounced, there is every likelihood of conflicting decisions coming from the Court. Hence, it is always safe for the Court to club both the suits together as the cause of action to the dispute is same and the parties also being same except the Government in the suit filed by the petitioner herein.
5. Hence, I direct the Court below to club both the suits and try together them,
if necessary by refraining the issues with reference to the pleadings in both the suits. As the Government seemed to have not filed its written statement, the Court shall insist the Government to file written statement at the earliest possible time and take up the trial in both the case together.
6. Now the question to be considered is whether the relief sought for by the petitioner in JA 821 of 1999 in OS 156 of 1995 i.e., request of the petitioner to treat the evidence she has already given in OS 156 of 1995 as the evidence in OS 239 of 1988 filed by her, if necessary by giving permission to the defendant to cross-examine the petitioner, if so advised, can be granted. By doing so the Court will not only save time but also the possibility of filling up of gaps in the evidence by the petitioner can be avoided. It is always advantageous to the other side when the petitioner herself has come up with such a prayer and instead of clinching the opportunity the respondent herein tried to oppose the request of the petitioner. T do not find any substance worth the name in the objection raised by the respondent as the petitioner is volunteering to get herself cross-examined either by the respondent or by the Government on the basis of her deposition in chief-examination. By doing so prejudice will be caused to the case of the respondent. Hence I hold that the Court below erred in dismissing the application filed by thea petitioner. As the cross-examination of the petitioner was also over in the said suit. I have a feeling that no further cross-examination also need be required. But as the respondent is entitled as a matter of right to cross-examine the plaintiff in the capacity of defendant, if the respondent herein wants to cross-examine the petitioner he may move the Court below by filing an application. In such an event the Court below shall allow the application and call the petitioner to the witness box to make her available for cross-examination either by the
petitioner or by the Government. As the earliest suit is of the year of 1995, I direct the Court below the dispose of both the suits within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. CRP is accordingly allowed.