HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 27-01-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5705 OF 2009 Between: Mohd. Abdul Rafe. …Petitioner. And: N.Shanker. …Respondent. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner herein aggrieved by the order dated 6-11-2009 passed in I.A.No.458 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. Petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Court below. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed the two suits in O.S.No.68 of 2007 as well as O.S.No.69 of 2007 respectively before the Court below seeking recovery of an amount of certain amounts in these two suits. During the pendency of the present suit in O.S.No.68 of 2007, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.458 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 2007 seeking to club the suit in O.S.No.68 of 20007 with the suit in O.S.No.69 of 2007. The Court below having observed that there is no question of inconvenience to the defendant for producing the defendant and his witnesses to prove his pleadings and the present application is filed at the belated stage for dragging the matter, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the defendant. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the Court below without any valid ground dismissed the application. Further it is contended that if both the suits are clubbed together, no prejudice would be caused to both parties and hence, the order impugned needs interference and the same is liable to be set aside. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff that the cause of action in both the suits is different. Apart from that, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was already over and apart from that the issue involved in the both the suits are quite distinct and hence, if both the suits are clubbed together, it would prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff and hence, the order impugned needs no interference. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The grievance of the petitioner-defendant is that it would be very convenient for him to adduce his side evidence to disprove the claim of the respondent-plaintiff if both the suits in question are clubbed together. On the other hand, the case of the respondent-plaintiff is that the present application seeking to club the suits itself is filed at a belated stage only with a view to drag on the proceedings on one pretext or the other. A perusal of record goes to show that the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2007 basing on the pronote executed by the defendant. The defendant filed his written statement in the year 2008. The evidence of plaintiff’’s side is over and the suit was posted for defendants side evidence. Apart from that the suit in question under went several adjournments for recording the evidence on defendant’s side. At this juncture, the petitioner-defendant came up with the present application seeking to club the present suit on hand with that of another suit in O.S.No.69 of 2007. Admittedly, the plaintiff side evidence was already completed and the matter was coming up for the evidence of defendant’s side. The defendant ought to have filed the present application before commencement of trial but not at this stage of evidence on defendant’s side. Apart from that it is pertinent to note that the defendant has already obtained the certified copies of all the documents which were filed in O.S.No.69 of 2007 and the same were filed along with a memo in O.S.No.68 of 2007 with a prayer to substitute them in the place of Xerox copies which are admissible in evidence and hence, there is no question of inconvenience to the defendant for producing the defendant and his witnesses to prove his pleadings and contents of his documents as rightly observed by the Court below. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Court below and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 27-01-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5705 OF 2009 Dated 27-01-2010