THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA. C.R.P. No. 4851 of 2009 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 08.09. 2009, passed by the judge, Family Court, allowing the application in I.A. No. 1784 of 2009 in O.S. No. 27 of 2008, filed by the respondent, praying to delete the present suit from joint trial along with two suits in O.S. Nos. 25 and 26 of 2006 and proceed with the trial of the present suit independently. The petitioner is the father of the respondent. The respondent filed the present suit O.S. No. 27 of 2008 against the petitioner for recovery of maintenance arrears. It appears that the petitioner filed two suits in O.S. Nos. 210 of 2003 and 1246 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, against the respondent and his wife, for injunction and partition of certain properties. On the request made by the petitioner in Tr.O.P. No. 420 of 2009, the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, by order dated 07.07.2008, withdrew the suits O.S. Nos. 210 of 2003 (new number 25 of 2008) and 1246 of 2006 (new number 26 of 2008) from the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and transferred the same to the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for trial along with the suit in O.S. No. 2828 of 2007 (new 27 of 2008). While so, the respondent filed the present application, praying to delete the suit O.S. No. 27 of 2008 from joint trial along with O.S. Nos. 25 and 26 of 2008 and try the same independently. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. When once the District Judge, to avoid conflicting decisions, vide order dated 07.07.2008 passed in Tr.O.P. No. 420 of 2008 had directed joint trial of all the three suits by clubbing them together, I fail to understand how the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, could have ordered deletion of the suit in question from the joint trial. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is taking adjournments and not co-operating with the trial of the suits. If that be so, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the C.R.P. with the following directions: The order under revision is set aside. The Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to try and dispose of the three suits jointly, expeditiously without granting adjournments to the petitioner, if possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 30th October, 2009 KSR