THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.2543, 2544, 2545 AND 2546 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are clubbed together and being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners in CRP No.2545 of 2009 are plaintiffs in O.S. No.25 of 2008, which was filed for cancellation of sale deeds under which the respondents/defendants claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. The petitioners in CRP Nos.2543, 2544 and 2546 of 2009 are defendants in O.S.Nos.89, 96 and 86 of 2007 respectively, which were filed by the respondents, in these revision petitions, for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioners in all these revision petitions filed in the suits identical applications being I.A.Nos.418, 419, 420 and 417 of 2008 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking to club O.S.Nos.86, 89, 96 of 2007 and 25 of 2008 to conduct joint trial and dispose of them jointly. The leaned Judge, by separate orders dated 02.05.2009, dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by way of these revision petitions. In these revision petitions, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as much as the properties in dispute, which are subject matter of the suits, are same, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court below ought to have allowed the applications for clubbing of the suits. It is to be noted that the parties in all the suits are not common. It can also be seen from the material on record that the extents of the suit schedule properties are different from one suit to another suit and the cause of action also arisen on different dates. In this view of the matter and also in view of the fact that O.S.No.25 of 2008 was filed for cancellation of sale deeds and permanent injunction, whereas other suits were filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction, there will be variance in the issues to be decided in all these suits, it is not desirable to club all these suits for joint trial and disposal. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders so as to interfere with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 11th September, 2009 vrn