Sri G. Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.l.,

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.Com., B.L.,

Prl.District Judge, Ongole

Thursday, this the 18th day of April, 2013

Tr.O.P.No.10/2013

Between: Manduva Chenchaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, 85 years, Hindu, resident of Manduvavaripalem, Ongole Mandal , Prakasa District … Petitioner

and

Vaddapalli Ramudu, s/o. Chenchaiah, Aged about 27 years, Resident of H.No.5-2/5, Muthrinagar, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. … Respondents

This petition coming on 18.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.L.Govindaiah, counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.V.S.R.Murthy, counsel for the respondent, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

The petitioner filed this petition u/Sec. 24 of C.P.C. with a prayer to transfer the suit in O.S.No.56/2012 from the file of the

Court of V Additional District Judge, Ongole to the file of the

Court of I Additional District court or Prl. District court, Ongole to try along with batch suits.

2.The contents of the petition, in brief, are as follows:-

(a)The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.56/2012 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge Ongole filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 23.8.2010 with false and untenable allegations and the petitioner filed written statement in the said suit contending that one Marella Rajendra Prasad obtained alleged agreement of sale from the petitioner herein and several others in

Manduvavaripalem village, when there was proposal of acquisition of the plaint schedule land and other lands at the vicinity of the plaint schedule land and the said Rajendra Prasad obtained agreement of sale by promising that MOU will be 2 executed between the parties with regard to their real terms, but failed to execute MOU either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of any others from whom the above Rajendra Prasad on the behalf of the respondent herein and other syndicate members obtained agreement of sales and the respondent herein and others filed several suits and about 17 suits were got filed by the above said

Rajendra Prasad through several others including the respondent herein and all the suits got filed by Rajendra Prasad are for specific performance of agreement of sales and the main defence of the petitioner in all the suits is one and the same and all the schedule lands are adjacent to each other and the agreements of sales are stereographic method only and the defendants were put in fear of acquisition of their lands by the plaintiffs group and obtained agreement of sales by promising that they will look after that the proposal of land acquisition will be withdrawn by the

Government. If the suits were to be disposed of by different courts, there is every likelihood of arriving at conflicting judgments, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

3.Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent. The respondent entered his appearance through his counsel and filed a joint memo by both sides stating that they have no objection for allowing the petition and the same was recorded.

4.Heard.

5.The point that arises for consideration in this matter is

Whether there are any just grounds to

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.56/2012 from

the file of the Court of V Additional

District Judge, Ongole to the file of the

Court of I Additional District Judge,

Ongole or to the file of the Court of

Principal District Judge, Ongole?

6. Point:- 3

(a)As seen from the material available on record, xerox copies of the plaints in both the suits and as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.56/2012 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge Ongole filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 23.8.2010 with false and untenable allegations and the petitioner filed written statement in the said suit contending that one Marella Rajendra Prasad obtained alleged agreement of sale from the petitioner herein and several others in

Manduvavaripalem village, when there was proposal of acquisition of the plaint schedule land and other lands at the vicinity of the plaint schedule land and the said Rajendra Prasad obtained agreement of sale by promising that MOU will be executed between the parties with regard to their real terms, but failed to execute MOU either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of any others from whom the above Rajendra Prasad on the behalf of the respondent herein and other syndicate members obtained agreement of sales and the respondent herein and others filed several suits and about 17 suits were got filed by the above said

Rajendra Prasad through several others including the respondent herein and all the suits got filed by Rajendra Prasad are for specific performance of agreement of sales and the main defence of the petitioner in all the suits is one and the same and all the schedule lands are adjacent to each other and the agreements of sales are stereographic method only and the defendants were put in fear of acquisition of their lands by the plaintiffs group and obtained agreement of sales by promising that they will look after that the proposal of land acquisition will be withdrawn by the

Government.

4

(b)At the time of arguments, a joint memo was filed by the respondent stating that they have no objection to grant the relief prayed for in the petition and the same was recorded.

(c)From the above, it is clear that nearly 17 suits were filed for specific performance by the petitioner and others and they were pending on the file of this Court, I Addl. District Court, Ongole, II

Addl. District Court, III Additional District Court and V Additional

District Court, Ongole and the defence taken by the defendants in all the above suits is one and the same. If the suits are to be disposed of by different Courts, there is every likelihood of conflicting decisions, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, I am inclined to transfer all the suits to the file of this Court to try and dispose of along with the suits pending on the file of this Court. This point is accordingly answered.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed withdrawing the suit in

O.S.No.56/2012 from the file of the Court of V Additional District

Judge, Ongole to the file of the this Court (Prl. District Court,

Ongole) for joint trial and disposal along with other batch suits, as per the joint memo. No costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on the 18th day of April, 2013.

Sd/-. G. Chakradhara Rao

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

Copy to:

The V Additional District Court, Ongole // t c f b o //

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

5

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.Com., B.L.,

Prl.District Judge, Ongole

Thursday, this the 18th day of April, 2013

Tr.O.P.No.12/2013

Between: Kovi Govindamma, W/o. Adinarayana, Aged about 86 years, Hindu, Resident of Manduvavaripalem Village, Ongole mandal, Prakasam District … Petitioner

and

Vaddapalli Ramudu, s/o. Chenchaiah, Aged about 27 years, Resident of H.No.5-2/5, Muthrinagar, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. … Respondents

This petition coming on 18.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.L.Govindaiah, counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.V.S.R.Murthy, counsel for the respondent, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

The petitioner filed this petition u/Sec. 24 of C.P.C. with a prayer to transfer the suit in O.S.No.301/2011 from the file of the

Court of V Additional District Judge, Ongole to the file of the

Court of I Additional District court or Prl. District court, Ongole to try along with batch suits.

2.The contents of the petition, in brief, are as follows:-

(a)The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.301/2011 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge Ongole filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 23.8.2010 with false and untenable allegations and the petitioner filed written statement in the said suit contending that one Marella Rajendra Prasad obtained alleged agreement of sale from the petitioner herein and several others in

Manduvavaripalem village, when there was proposal of acquisition of the plaint schedule land and other lands at the vicinity of the plaint schedule land and the said Rajendra Prasad obtained agreement of sale by promising that MOU will be 2 executed between the parties with regard to their real terms, but failed to execute MOU either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of any others from whom the above Rajendra Prasad on the behalf of the respondent herein and other syndicate members obtained agreement of sales and the respondent herein and others filed several suits and about 17 suits were got filed by the above said

Rajendra Prasad through several others including the respondent herein and all the suits got filed by Rajendra Prasad are for specific performance of agreement of sales and the main defence of the petitioner in all the suits is one and the same and all the schedule lands are adjacent to each other and the agreements of sales are stereographic method only and the defendants were put in fear of acquisition of their lands by the plaintiffs group and obtained agreement of sales by promising that they will look after that the proposal of land acquisition will be withdrawn by the

Government. If the suits were to be disposed of by different courts, there is every likelihood of arriving at conflicting judgments, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

3.Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent. The respondent entered his appearance through his counsel and filed a joint memo by both sides stating that they have no objection for allowing the petition and the same was recorded.

4.Heard.

5.The point that arises for consideration in this matter is

Whether there are any just grounds to

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.301/2011

from the file of the Court of V Additional

District Judge, Ongole to the file of the

Court of I Additional District Judge,

Ongole or to the file of the Court of

Principal District Judge, Ongole?

6. Point:- 3

(a)As seen from the material available on record, xerox copies of the plaints in both the suits and as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.301/2011 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge Ongole filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 23.8.2010 with false and untenable allegations and the petitioner filed written statement in the said suit contending that one Marella Rajendra Prasad obtained alleged agreement of sale from the petitioner herein and several others in

Manduvavaripalem village, when there was proposal of acquisition of the plaint schedule land and other lands at the vicinity of the plaint schedule land and the said Rajendra Prasad obtained agreement of sale by promising that MOU will be executed between the parties with regard to their real terms, but failed to execute MOU either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of any others from whom the above Rajendra Prasad on the behalf of the respondent herein and other syndicate members obtained agreement of sales and the respondent herein and others filed several suits and about 17 suits were got filed by the above said

Rajendra Prasad through several others including the respondent herein and all the suits got filed by Rajendra Prasad are for specific performance of agreement of sales and the main defence of the petitioner in all the suits is one and the same and all the schedule lands are adjacent to each other and the agreements of sales are stereographic method only and the defendants were put in fear of acquisition of their lands by the plaintiffs group and obtained agreement of sales by promising that they will look after that the proposal of land acquisition will be withdrawn by the

Government.

4

(b)At the time of arguments, a joint memo was filed by the respondent stating that they have no objection to grant the relief prayed for in the petition and the same was recorded.

(c)From the above, it is clear that nearly 17 suits were filed for specific performance by the petitioner and others and they were pending on the file of this Court, I Addl. District Court, Ongole, II

Addl. District Court, III Additional District Court and V Additional

District Court, Ongole and the defence taken by the defendants in all the above suits is one and the same. If the suits are to be disposed of by different Courts, there is every likelihood of conflicting decisions, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, I am inclined to transfer all the suits to the file of this Court to try and dispose of along with the suits pending on the file of this Court. This point is accordingly answered.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed withdrawing the suit in

O.S.No.301/2011 from the file of the Court of V Additional District

Judge, Ongole to the file of the this Court (Prl. District Court,

Ongole) for joint trial and disposal along with other batch suits, as per the joint memo. No costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on the 18th day of April, 2013.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

Copy to:

The V Additional District Court, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.Com., B.L.,

Prl.District Judge, Ongole

Thursday, this the 18th day of April, 2013

Tr.O.P.No.11/2013

Between: Kamani Kotaiah, S/o. Raghavulu, 64 years, r/o. Manduvavaripalem Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner

and

Vaddapalli Ramudu, s/o. Chenchaiah, Aged about 27 years, Resident of H.No.5-2/5, Muthrinagar, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. … Respondents

This petition coming on 18.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.L.Govindaiah, counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.V.S.R.Murthy, counsel for the respondent, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

The petitioner filed this petition u/Sec. 24 of C.P.C. with a prayer to transfer the suit in O.S.No.299/2011 from the file of the

Court of V Additional District Judge, Ongole to the file of the

Court of I Additional District court or Prl. District court, Ongole to try along with batch suits.

2.The contents of the petition, in brief, are as follows:-

(a)The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.299/2011 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge Ongole filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 23.8.2010 with false and untenable allegations and the petitioner filed written statement in the said suit contending that one Marella Rajendra Prasad obtained alleged agreement of sale from the petitioner herein and several others in

Manduvavaripalem village, when there was proposal of acquisition of the plaint schedule land and other lands at the vicinity of the plaint schedule land and the said Rajendra Prasad obtained agreement of sale by promising that MOU will be 2 executed between the parties with regard to their real terms, but failed to execute MOU either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of any others from whom the above Rajendra Prasad on the behalf of the respondent herein and other syndicate members obtained agreement of sales and the respondent herein and others filed several suits and about 17 suits were got filed by the above said

Rajendra Prasad through several others including the respondent herein and all the suits got filed by Rajendra Prasad are for specific performance of agreement of sales and the main defence of the petitioner in all the suits is one and the same and all the schedule lands are adjacent to each other and the agreements of sales are stereographic method only and the defendants were put in fear of acquisition of their lands by the plaintiffs group and obtained agreement of sales by promising that they will look after that the proposal of land acquisition will be withdrawn by the

Government. If the suits were to be disposed of by different courts, there is every likelihood of arriving at conflicting judgments, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

3.Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent. The respondent entered his appearance through his counsel and filed a joint memo by both sides stating that they have no objection for allowing the petition and the same was recorded.

4.Heard.

5.The point that arises for consideration in this matter is

Whether there are any just grounds to

withdraw the suit in O.S.No.299/2011

from the file of the Court of V Additional

District Judge, Ongole to the file of the

Court of I Additional District Judge,

Ongole or to the file of the Court of

Principal District Judge, Ongole?

6. Point:- 3

(a)As seen from the material available on record, xerox copies of the plaints in both the suits and as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.299/2011 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge Ongole filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 23.8.2010 with false and untenable allegations and the petitioner filed written statement in the said suit contending that one Marella Rajendra Prasad obtained alleged agreement of sale from the petitioner herein and several others in

Manduvavaripalem village, when there was proposal of acquisition of the plaint schedule land and other lands at the vicinity of the plaint schedule land and the said Rajendra Prasad obtained agreement of sale by promising that MOU will be executed between the parties with regard to their real terms, but failed to execute MOU either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of any others from whom the above Rajendra Prasad on the behalf of the respondent herein and other syndicate members obtained agreement of sales and the respondent herein and others filed several suits and about 17 suits were got filed by the above said

Rajendra Prasad through several others including the respondent herein and all the suits got filed by Rajendra Prasad are for specific performance of agreement of sales and the main defence of the petitioner in all the suits is one and the same and all the schedule lands are adjacent to each other and the agreements of sales are stereographic method only and the defendants were put in fear of acquisition of their lands by the plaintiffs group and obtained agreement of sales by promising that they will look after that the proposal of land acquisition will be withdrawn by the

Government.

4

(b)At the time of arguments, a joint memo was filed by the respondent stating that they have no objection to grant the relief prayed for in the petition and the same was recorded.

(c)From the above, it is clear that nearly 17 suits were filed for specific performance by the petitioner and others and they were pending on the file of this Court, I Addl. District Court, Ongole, II

Addl. District Court, III Additional District Court and V Additional

District Court, Ongole and the defence taken by the defendants in all the above suits is one and the same. If the suits are to be disposed of by different Courts, there is every likelihood of conflicting decisions, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, I am inclined to transfer all the suits to the file of this Court to try and dispose of along with the suits pending on the file of this Court. This point is accordingly answered.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed withdrawing the suit in

O.S.No.299/2011 from the file of the Court of V Additional District

Judge, Ongole to the file of the this Court (Prl. District Court,

Ongole) for joint trial and disposal along with other batch suits, as per the joint memo. No costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on the 18th day of April, 2013.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

Copy to:

The V Additional District Court, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

Present: Sri A. Radhakrishna

Principal District Judge, Ongole

This the 20nd day of April, 2013

Crl.A.No.91/2013

Between:

The Forest Range Officer, Markapur rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole Address - Markapur Advocate- Public Prosecutor … Appellant

And

Kantu Polaiah Address - Mutharasi by caste, Cooli, Yadavalli villalge, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District … Respondent

Docket order dated 20.04.2013

This Crl.Appeal is transferred to Family Court-cum-VIII Additional

Sessions court, Ongole for disposal according to law.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE