THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP NO.3353 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the docket order dated 13-7-2009 passed in IA (GR) No.1929 of 2009 in OS No.1698 of 2005 by the V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the impugned docket order passed by the Court below. 3. The facts stated are:- the suit was filed for permanent injunction with regard to A & B schedule properties and later, during the trial, confined to A-schedule property of the plaint. The trial Court after considering the material on record decreed the suit and aggrieved thereby the 5th defendant (revision petitioner herein) filed appeal AS No.21 of 2008. The lower appellate Court having found that the plaintiff in the suit was the purchaser of the suit property, which being the subject matter of another suit OS No.2856 of 2004, and pending suit the plaintiff was bound by the principle of lis pendence under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court to club both the suits i.e. the present suit OS No.1698 of 2005 and OS No.2856 of 2004. The trial Court was further directed to club both the suits and decide the cases together after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence, if necessary. It is further stated that the parties realised that suit OS No.2856 of 2004, which was directed to be clubbed and decided along with suit OS No.1698 of 2005, was not pending and it was dismissed for default even as on the date of remand order passed by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a memo in AS No.21 of 2008 on which the lower appellate Court passed order which is thus:- “Heard. In view of the circumstances stated in the memo and suit OS No.2856 of 2004 is said to be not pending, the lower Court is directed to dispose of OS No.1698 of 2005 on merits.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner sought to file the present application seeking to file certain documents which shows the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the suit OS No.2856 of 2004 is not pending and therefore the question of adducing further evidence in the suit doest not arise. 5. The suit OS No.2856 of 2004 was dismissed for default on 1-9- 2008 and the judgment in appeal AS No.21 of 2008 was delivered on 9-2- 2009, that is nearly one year after the dismissal of the said suit for default. It was incumbent upon the counsel for the parties to represent to the Court during the course of hearing of the appeal that the said suit is not pending and it was dismissed for default and non-mentioning of the same before the Court led the lower appellate Court to remand the matter. This conduct of the learned counsel is not appreciable. The lower appellate Court also failed to ascertain the stage of the suit before passing the order. Inasmuch as the said suit OS No.2856 of 2004 is not pending and it is dismissed for default, the trial Court to proceed with the present suit OS No.1698 of 2005 and decide the same on merits. It is nothing but re-consideration of the same suit afresh and in such a situation there is no necessity to adduce any additional evidence. However, it open to the parties to make further submissions in the matter. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated April, 2010 Nrg.