IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4533 of 2011 Between: Nallabothula Vijaya Kumar S/o Satyanarayana, 39 years, R/o Door No.20-1-98, Maruthi nagar, Korlagunta,Tirupathi. . ...Petitioner-Respondent No.1-Plaintiff And 1.A.John Sundaram, S/o Dr.A.Paramanandam, 51 years, Pachikapalem Harijanawada, Pachikapalam village, Vedurukuppam, Chittoor District and 6 others. .. Respondent-petitioner-D1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA C.R.P.No.4533 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is ﬁled against the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District dated 23.09.2011 allowing I.A.No.587 of 2011 in O.S.No.303 of 2006 ﬁled by the 1 st defendant, who is the 1st respondent herein. Petitioner herein ﬁled the aforesaid suit, O.S.No.303 of 2006 against the respondents herein for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents herein contested the said suit by ﬁling written statement. In the said suit, evidence of the petitioner was over and the suit is coming up for cross-examination of the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent herein also ﬁled a suit, O.S.No.283 of 2006 against respondents 5 to 7 herein and others for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. While so, the 1st respondent herein ﬁled the present I.A.No.587 of 2011 seeking to order joint trial of the aforesaid suits. The trial Court, on consideration of the entire material available on record, allowed the said application. It is against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner herein. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the suits are distinct and separate and as such both the suits cannot be clubbed together for joint trial. He further submits that the trial in O.S.No.303 of 2006 has already begun and the said suit is posted for cross-examination of D.W.1, whereas O.S.No.283 of 2006 is still at the inception and issues are also not framed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, while supporting the impugned order of the trial Court, contends that the schedule properties and the persons claiming interest in both the suits are one and the same, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conﬂict of judgments, it is very much essential to club both the suits and conduct joint trial. I have perused the order under revision and the material available on record. In the present application, neither the revision petitioner herein nor any other respondent in the said petition, has chosen to ﬁle counter in spite of granting suﬃcient opportunity to them and, therefore, the trial Court had no other option except to forfeit their right to ﬁle counter, and eventually the trial Court passed the impugned order. The revision petitioner herein failed to give any reason, much less valid reason, for not ﬁling counter in the I.A. except stating that he could not ﬁle the counter owing to various reasons. However, both the learned Counsel agreed for clubbing the suit, O.S.No.283 of 2006 ﬁled by the 1 st respondent herein with O.S.No.303 of 2006 ﬁled by the revision petitioner, and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to ﬁle an additional aﬃdavit in lieu of chief- examination. In view of the above stand taken by the Counsel, there is no need to interfere with the order under revision. The trial Court is directed to club both the suits and conduct joint trial. The revision petitioner is also permitted to ﬁle an additional aﬃdavit in lieu of chief- examination and thereafter the respondents shall cross- examine him. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA 18.11.2011 Gsn.