HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 3472 OF 2009 Thursday, the thirteenth Day of August, Two Thousand and Nine Between Tunk Kalavathi Petitioner AND Sadalakshmi and others. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 3472 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 18.6.2009 made in IA No. 405 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1091 of 2007 whereby the learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowed the petition to lead common evidence in three suits OS Nos. 1091 of 2007, 1922 and 1947 of 2008 treating the evidence recorded and the documents marked in OS No. 1947 of 2008 as the evidence in OS No. 1922 of 2008 and OS No. 1091 of 2007. The court below observed that the parties to the suit and the subject matter of all the suits are interconnected. It is further observed that OS No. 2436 of 2007 was transferred from IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in terms of the orders passed in OP No. 879 of 2008 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to be tried along with OS No. 1091 of 2007 which is filed by the petitioner herein to declare the Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 8.5.2006 executed by the second respondent herein as null and void and to cancel the same. It is also observed by the court below that during pendency of OS No. 1947 of 2008 on the file of IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the trial has commenced and, as such, it was ordered that the evidence recorded in the said suit shall be treated as the evidence in other suits also. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred inter alia contending that when the petitioner herein is not a party to OS No. 1947 of 2008, the court below ought not to have directed that common evidence be recorded in the said suit. It is not in dispute that the subject matter involved in all the above suits is one and the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is not a party in OS No. 1947 of 2008 and, as such, the court below ought not to have clubbed all the suits and ordered for recording of evidence in the said suit. The submission is not much relevant, inasmuch as the said aspect will be taken care by the court below while recording the evidence and marking the documents more particularly in view of the fact that the subject matter in all the suits is one and the same. For the reasons assigned by the court below in its well- considered order, I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to dispose of the suits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari August 13, 2009 MAS