THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.270 OF 2007 and 1430 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. Since these two Civil Revision Petitions arise between the same parties, they are taken up together for disposal, as requested by the learned counsel on either side. Civil Revision Petition No.270 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff, aggrieved by the order, dated 28.12.2006, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, in I.A.No.106 of 2006 in O.S.No.89 of 1999, which was filed seeking to amend the plaint by adding the words “by way of adverse possession”. The Court below having gone into the merits, and, virtually, by giving a finding, did not find it proper to show any indulgence and accordingly, rejected the said application. Civil Revision Petition No.1430 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants, aggrieved by the order, dated 04.02.2009, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, in dismissing the application in I.A.No.250 of 2008 in O.S.No.54 of 2000, filed under Section 10 of C.P.C., seeking to stay the suit till the disposal of O.S.No.89 of 1999 on its file. Having heard learned counsel on either side and on a perusal of the material on record, it is to be seen that the amendment for including the relief of adverse possession in the prayer portion of the suit is always to be treated as an alternative relief only and therefore, the question of changing the nature of the suit or dragging on the proceedings does not arise. The Court below while considering the interlocutory application gone into the merits of the case and proceeded to record a finding on merits itself stating that the question of adverse possession does not arise, which is absolutely unsustainable. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is quite desirable that the petitioner in C.R.P.No.270 of 2007 be permitted to amend the plaint. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.270 of 2007 is allowed and the impugned order therein is set aside. Insofar as C.R.P.No.1430 of 2007 is concerned, since it is only against the order in dismissing the application filed under Section 10 of C.P.C., in order to avoid the conflict of judgments and also the multiplicity of the litigation, which may crop up, it is felt desirable that both the suits i.e., O.S.Nos.89 of 1999 and 54 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, be clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment. In the circumstances, subject to the above, the C.R.P.No.1430 of 2009 is dismissed. It is also made clear that the defendants in O.S.No.89 of 1999 can always file their objections by way of additional written statement. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO 1st July 2010 dr