THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 4419 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.08.2011 in I.A.No.699 of 2011 in O.S.No.63 of 2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. to permit him to adduce evidence in the suit in O.S.No.63 of 2011 and also other suits in O.S.Nos. 64 of 2011 and 30 of 2009 independently and to record evidence separately by conducting simultaneous trial to avoid confusion and ambiguity, was dismissed. The petitioner filed O.S.No.137 of 2007 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda challenging the notice dated 02.06.2007 issued by respondent No.1 whereby he was required to close the poultry farm established by him on the ground that it is causing pollution. Some third parties filed O.S.No.225 of 2007 before the same Court against the petitioner for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain him from adding any fresh birds to the poultry farm and mandatory injunction to remove the farm on the ground that it is becoming a source of contamination and pollution. While so, O.S.No.30 of 2009 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda for the relief of perpetual and mandatory injunctions similar to the relief claimed in O.S.No.225 of 2007. Therefore, the petitioner filed Tr.C.M.P.Nos. 174 and 212 of 2010 before this Court praying to withdraw O.S.Nos.137 and 225 of 2007 pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda for joint trial along with O.S.No.30 of 2009 pending on its file. This Court by order dated 19.07.2010 allowed Tr.C.M.Ps transferring O.S.Nos.137 and 225 of 2007 from the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda with a direction to the Senior Civil Judge to hear them along with O.S.No.30 of 2009 and to commence the trial forthwith. The learned Judge was also directed to dispose of the suits as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. On such transfer, the suit in O.S.No. 137 of 2007 was renumbered as O.S.No.63 of 2011 and O.S.No.225 of 2007 was renumbered as O.S.No.64 of 2011. In O.S.No.63 of 2011, the petitioner filed I.A.No.699 of 2011 to permit him to adduce evidence in O.S.No.63 of 2011 and also other suits in O.S.Nos.64 of 2011 and 30 of 2009 independently and to record evidence separately by conducting simultaneous trial to avoid confusion and ambiguity. The lower Court dismissed the said I.A. stating that in view of transfer of the suits by the High Court, allowing the application would be against the orders of the High Court and it is for the parties to seek clarification in this regard, if necessary, by approaching the High Court. The learned trial Judge misunderstood the order passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.Nos.174 and 212 of 2010 withdrawing the suits in O.S.Nos. 137 and 225 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and transferring the same to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda to be heard along with O.S.No.30 of 2009 pending on its file. This Court categorically observed that the petitioner is not a party to the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2009 and the schedule properties are also different. The fact, however, remains that the nature of reliefs claimed in all the three suits overlap each other. The cause of action is also different. Since common question of fact and law arises for consideration in the three suits, Tr.C.M.Ps. are allowed only to hear the suits along with O.S.No.30 of 2009. That does not mean that this Court directed the lower Court to conduct common trial. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside and I.A.No.699 of 2011 in O.S.No.63 of 2011 stands allowed. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt. 28.10.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 4419 of 2011 Dt.28.10.2011