CRP 295/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA Heard Mr KR Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr S. Shyam , learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3, the Tea Board and Mr B Kali a, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos 1 and 2, State Bank o f India and the Bank of Baroda, respectively. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition is the order d ated 5.5.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Suit No.209/2007 thereby staying the further proceeding of the suit under sectio n 10 of the CPC till disposal of Title Suit No.450/2004 pending in the same cour t. The Title Suit No.450/2004 was filed by the respondent Tea Board prayin g for recovery of Rs.1,40,000/-(sic) from the defendant Nos 1 to 5 which includ es the present petitioner, along with the pendente lite and future interest. In the aforesaid suit, the present petitioner who was impleaded as defendant No.1 f iled their written statement as well as a counter claim. While the aforesaid suit was pending for disposal, the present petitioner as plaintiff instituted T itle Suit No.209/2007 in the same court, praying for certain declaration includ ing a declaration that it suffered loss on earning to the extent of Rs.89.15 cro res and to recover the said amount jointly and severally from the defendants inc luding the Tea Board, along with other reliefs. In fact, the basic cause leading to the filing of both the suites origin ates from granting of certain financial accommodations by the banks to the pre sent petitioner on the basis of a consortium agreement. As per the agreement en tered into amongst the petitioner, the Tea Board and two defendants banks, the repayment of the loan amount as assured by the petitioner not having been made, inspite of reshuffling of the loan, the Tea Board instituted Title suit No.450 /2004 for recovery of the amount. The subsequent suit instituted by the petition er was based on the same basic transaction where it has been alleged that it suf fered loss due to action of the defendants and prayed for setting off the recove ry of amount and to adjust it from the dues that may be found liable to be pai d by the petitioner. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the mat ter in its entirety, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice wou ld be met if both the suits are directed tobe tried by the same court analogous ly. Accordingly, it is directed that Title Suit No.450/2004 as well as Title sui t No.209/2007 which are stated to be pending in the court of the learned Civil J udge N.2,Kamrup,Guwahati be tried analogously. Both the parties are directed to take steps for expeditious hearing of the suits. If no written statement has y et been filed in Title suit No.209/2007 till date, the defendants are allowed a nd directed to file the same within a period one month from today. Considering t he entire facts and circumstances of the case, upon such filing of the written s tatement, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of both the suits as ex peditiously as possible and at any rate not later than six months from the date of filing of the written statement. With this order, the revision petition is disposed of finally.