THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5686 OF 2009 Dated: 18.01.2010 Between: 1. Nivarthi Satyanarayana Murthy and 2 others. … petitioners And 1. Basingal Siva Prasad and 5 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5686 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision petitioners herein are the defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The said suit is filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein for partition of the suit schedule properties. In or around the same time, the Revision petitioners i.e., the defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.34 of 2007 filed O.S.No.53 of 2007 in the same Court (Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadiri) against the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.34 of 2007 for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale allegedly executed by him in respect of Ac.1.41 cents of Government dry land situated in Sy.No.1638-4 of Kadiri Village. While the trial in O.S.No.34 of 2007 is in progress, the plaintiffs i.e., the respondents 1 to 5 herein filed I.A.No.235 of 2009 in O.S.No.34 of 2007 for consolidation of both the suits i.e., O.S.No.53 of 2007 and O.S.No.34 of 2007. Though the Revision petitioners opposed the said petition, the Court below, after hearing both parties, allowed I.A.No.235 of 2009 in O.S.No.34 of 2007 by order dated 13.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the order under Revision suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Admittedly the schedule property of the suit for specific performance i.e., O.S.No.53 of 2007 forms part of the schedule property of the suit for partition i.e., O.S.No.34 of 2007. Moreover, the parties to both the suits are also common. In the circumstances, the Court below opined that the dispute between the parties can be decided in a better way if both the suits are clubbed. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. I am satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Court below while arriving at the conclusion that clubbing of the suits is necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved in both the suits. No case could be made out by the Revision petitioners to show that such clubbing has caused any prejudice to their interest. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.01.2010 gbs