HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4329 OF 2010 Dated: 29.10.2010 Between: Moyilla Paparao. ..Petitioner And 1. Rasamsetti Pentagiri (died) and others. .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4329 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, East Godavari District, in I.A.No.317 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2005. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The said suit is pending. In respect of the same property, the defendants also filed another suit in O.S.No.107 of 2005 against the plaintiff herein for the relief of permanent injunction before the same Court and the same is also pending. While so, the plaintiff filed the above application in O.S.No.87 of 2005 seeking to club both the suits and to record evidence in O.S.No.87 of 2005 in order to avoid conflicting views. The Court below having observed that defendants 6 & 7 are not made as parties to O.S.No.107 of 2005 and no relief is claimed against them in O.S.No.107 of 2005 and therefore, it is not necessary to club both the suits, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 10. Perused the material available on record. The material on record goes to show that the 6th defendant in O.S.No.87 of 2005 is the village secretary and the 7th defendant is the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Court below dismissed the above application on the ground that defendants 6 and 7 are not made as parties to O.S.No.107 of 2005 and no relief was claimed against them. But that cannot be a ground to deny the joint trial. The record goes to show that the property, parties and the issue involved in both the suits is one and the same. Further, both the suits are pending in one and the same Court. In a case of this nature, if the joint trial is conducted, divergent views can be avoided and apart from that, clubbing of the two suits in respect of the same property between the same parties for the purpose of a joint trial, may not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. In these circumstances, I feel that it is a case where joint trial is warranted, and hence, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed setting aside the order under revision. Consequently, I.A.No.317 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 29th October, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4329 OF 2010 29.10.2010