- (1.)Heard Sri T. Ramulu, the counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri J. Kanakayya, the counsel representing the respondents.
(2.)This Civil Revision Petition was filed along with an application for condonation of delay of one day and the delay was condoned and the matter is coming up for admission. At the stage of admission both the counsel requested that the main civil revision petition itself may be disposed of, for the reason, if the matter is delayed the disposal of the suits wills also be delayed. In view of the said representation made by both the counsel, at the stage of admission, the civil revision petition itself is being finally disposed of.
(3.)The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner, the defendant in O.S.No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet aggrieved by an order dated 11-9-2002 which was made on the memo filed in O.S.No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddepet, by the counsel for the petitioner. A memo was filed in O.S.No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet on the ground that the suit claim in O.S.No. 4 of 2002 and the suit claim in O.S.No. 5 of 2002 are connected and an issue also was framed, accordingly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it is necessary to club O.S.No. 5 of 2002 with O.S-No. 4 of 2002 for disposal. As per law, the learned Judge had not permitted common trial of O.S.No. 4 of 2002 and O.S.No. 5 of 2002 and had rejected the memo on the ground that the causes of action in both the suits are not one and the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.