THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.647 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 16.11.2009, passed by the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in Transfer O.P.No.55 of 2009. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Judge directed that O.S.No.51 of 2005 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada be withdrawn and transferred the same to the file of VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, on whose file O.S.No.111 of 2006 is pending. It was further observed that it is for the trial Court to decide either to try separately or jointly both the said suits, but, with a further rider that both the suits be taken up on the same dates of hearing in case they are tried separately. 4. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.111 of 2006 and defendants 1 to 3 and D-4 in the said suit are plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendant, respectively, in O.S.No.51 of 2005, which was filed seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. In other words, O.S.No.51 of 2005 is an inter-party suit among the defendants in O.S.No.111 of 2006, whereas the suit in O.S.No.111 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein is based on a mortgage deed. The causes of action and the relief sought for in both the suits are different and have nothing to do with each other and the petitioner is not a party to O.S.No.51 of 2005. 5. In such circumstances, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower appellate Court was in error in directing the trial Court to dispose of both the said suits jointly. 6. But, a perusal of the impugned order would only reveals that no such direction was issued by the lower appellate Court to the trial Court. The lower appellate Court in view of the fact that the cause of action and the relief sought for in both the said suits are different and the petitioner not being a party to the other suit viz., O.S.No.51 of 2005, however, directed the trial Court that both the suits be tried simultaneously on the same day and the judgment also be rendered simultaneously. 7. From the above, it is obvious that the learned counsel for the petitioner is neither fully contended nor he can be called as totally aggrieved by the impugned order inasmuch as both the suits were never directed to be tried jointly and a common judgment be passed. 8. Perhaps, the intention of the lower appellate Court in transferring both the said suits to the same Court was to avoid inconvenience to both the parties. It appears that for the same reason the lower appellate Court directed the trial Court to dispose of both the suits by trying simultaneously. The said direction conveys the meaning that the trial or the examination of the witnesses should be conducted in both the suits on the same day. In such an event, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.111 of 2006, though not necessary to be present on a particular date of hearing of the other suit-O.S.No.51 of 2005, has to be necessarily present and such an exercise imposed on the petitioner is totally unreasonable, particularly when the lower appellate Court had accepted the plea that there is no similarity between both the suits, except that the parties are same and the cause of action and the relief sought for in the said suits were totally different to each other. 9. For the foregoing, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition with the following directions: - The transferee Court i.e., VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, is directed to dispose of both the suits i.e., O.S.Nos.51 of 2005 and 111 of 2006 by conducting trial at the convenience of both the parties in both the suits. In other words, the examination of the witnesses in both the suits need not necessarily be on the same day. However, it is needless to mention that depending upon the necessity, without causing any inconvenience to the petitioner and the dates of hearing of both the said suits may be adjusted to avoid any unwanted inconvenience and duplication of the procedures during the course of trial of the said suits. 10. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 16th July, 2010 dr