HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.4953 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.435 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the respondents seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.1.83 cents in patta No.9 situated at Sangivalasa Agraharam, Rayapalem Village, Bheemili Taluk, Visakhapatnam. The respondents filed a written statement in the said suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another suit being O.S.No.1660 of 2006 before the same Court against the respondents for declaration and cancellation of sale deed Nos.1915 of 1954 and 305 of 1963 dated 13.12.1954 and 11.03.1963 respectively alleging that the sale deeds were fabricated by impersonation and forging the thumb impression of the vendor of the sale deeds. As the suit schedule property in both the suits is one and the same, the petitioner filed I.A.No.136 of 2008 in O.S.No.435 of 2005 to club the subsequent suit in O.S.No.1660 of 2005 and try both the suits and dispose of them by a common judgment. A counter was filed by the respondents-defendants in the I.A. stating that in the suit in O.S.No.435 of 2005, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and, therefore, the said suit cannot be clubbed with the subsequent suit. No other reasons are mentioned as to why the first suit shall not be clubbed with the subsequent suit when the suit scheduled property of both the suits is one and the same. The Court below dismissed the said application on the sole ground that it was filed belatedly. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on M/s. Sohal Engineering Works v. Rustam Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd.[1], wherein the Court has power under Section 151 CPC to direct two suits between the same parties where common questions are likely to arise to be tried together instead of staying the subsequently instituted suit under Section 10 of the CPC and it cannot be found fault with in directing common trial in both the suits. Though notices have been served on the respondents, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. The petitioner is the plaintiff in both the suits and he filed the present I.A. for clubbing both the suits. If both the suits are clubbed, it cannot be said that prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Hence, I am of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if both the suits are clubbed and even there was no much delay in filing the present I.A. as trial in the subsequently instituted suit has not yet commenced. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order in I.A.No.136 of 2008 in O.S.No.435 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is set aside. No order as to costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:26.11.2010 usd [1] AIR 1981 GUJARAT 110