THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.Nos.444 & 445 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: In both these appeals, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. C.M.A.No.444 of 2006 is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.68 of 2000 dated 23.3.2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam setting aside judgment and decree made in O.S.No.95 of 1994 dated 9.6.2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and remitting the matter to the trial Court for disposal according to law. C.M.A.No.445 of 2006 is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.66 of 2001 dated 23.3.2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam setting aside decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.73 of 1999 filed for permanent injunction and remitting the matter back to the trial Court for trial and disposal along with the connected suit in O.S.No.95 of 1994 filed for partition and separate possession of the properties scheduled therein including the property covered by O.S.No.23 of 1999 on the file of the same Court on the ground that the District Court in O.P.No.728 of 1998 ordered that both the suits should be tried together and disposed of. In all the matters, the parties are almost common. The question of partition is to be decided comprehensively considering all the properties of the parties. The question of permanent injunction also can be disposed of incidentally among the same parties. Hence unless all the suits are disposed of simultaneously independently and together, comprehensive decision is not possible, which may likely result in multiplicity of litigation and sufferance of parties. In view of the order of the District Court in the O.P., all the suits should be tried together. It is the contention of learned counsel for appellants herein that when the suits were disposed of comprehensively basing upon the evidence adduced, the judgments passed in the corresponding appeals remanding the matters for fresh consideration as per the observations made therein are not tenable and accordingly necessary orders are to be passed, which is not tenable in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE: -04-2011. DA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE DAY OF , TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14985 OF 2003 B e t w e e n: Sri Hansraj Gambhir. - - - Petitioner. A n d 1. The Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad at BRKR Complex, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Specoial Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum- III Addl. Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. Sri Devender Reddy. - - - Respondents. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.Nos.444 & 445 of 2006 .4.2011