THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 2656 of 2011 Dated. 15–07-2011 Between: K.N.V.S. Gurumurthy and another. …Petitioners Vs. K.V. Satyanarayana Raju rep., by his GPA Holder, Sri Gudla Narasinga Rao @ Narasinga Rao Reddy, Maddillapalem, Visakhapatnam and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 2656 of 2011 Dated: 15-07-2011 ORAL ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned VIII- Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhaptnam dated 22-06-2011 rejecting I.A.No. 183 of 2011 in O.S.No. 36 of 2006, being an application to club for joint trial of O.S.No. 36 of 2006 (earlier O.S.No. 99 of 2000) and O.S.No. 387 of 2004. In support of the relief sought in I.A.No. 183 of 2011 in O.S.No. 36 of 2006, the revision petitioners asserted that while the present suit is for a permanent injunction and O.S.No. 387 of 2004 for a declaration of title and consequential injunction, the parties are substantially similar and the suits schedule properties are the same and if both the suits are clubbed for joint trial, it will conducive to efficient trial and adduction of evidence in both the suits. In rejecting the application, the Court below held that though the survey numbers are common in both the suits, the extents are different in the suits; though some of the parties are common to both the suits, in the other suit – O.S.No. 387 of 2004 the District Collector and the Urban Land Ceiling Authority are also parties besides others, who are not parties to O.S.No. 36 of 2006 and therefore there is no need to club both the suits. In oral argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the trial in O.S.No. 387 of 2004 has been stayed in a revision by this Court preferred by the plaintiffs in that suit against an interlocutory order. This is an additional reason for declining interference with the order of the Court below. The present suit filed by the respondents herein for a permanent injunction simplicitor is initially filed in the year 2000 and has been re-numbered as O.S.No. 36 of 2006. In this view of the matter, it is not in the interests of justice that the trial of the suit for a bare injunction pending for more than eleven years, is interdicted. There are no reasons to interfere. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 15-07-2011 Pvks/*