These civil revision petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the orders passed under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 rejecting the plaints in three suits.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in C.R.P. No.5153 of 1998.

3. The genesis for this long drawn and multifaceted litigation is as under:

The 1st respondent is the mother of respondents 2 and 3. They are the owners of the premises bearing No. 1-6-49, Park Lane, Secunderabad. The said property was leased to Sri Amir Ali and his brother Mehdi Mahmood, petitioners 1 and 2 under a registered document dated 30.5.1977. The rent was fixed at Rs.600/- for the first three months and thereafter at Rs.750/per month. The lease was agreed to be in force for a period of 9 years. The petitioners were conferred with the right to exercise option for renewal of the lease for three spells of 9 years each, beyond 1986, by enhancing the rent by 10%. Other conditions were also stipulated. The third petitioner, M/s. AA Lords Shoes Private Limited, is a company, comprising of the petitioners 2 and 3 and some others.

4. The original period of lease expired on 31.5.1986. The petitioners forwarded a draft lease deed dated 2.7.1986 to the respondents seeking renewal for 9 years. There was no reaction from the respondents except that 'the rent beyond 30th May, 1986 was being received by their G.P.A "without prejudice". The respondents terminated the lease through a notice dated 25.7.1991. About one month thereafter, the third petitioner filed O.S. No.1027 of 1991 in the Court of the XVII Junior Civil Judgment-Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad against the respondents for the relief of declaration that the lease in respect of the suit premises is deemed to have been extended for a period of 9 years by virtue of clause contained in the document dated 30.5.1977, and to that it continues to be the lawful tenant of the suit premises, at an enhanced rent of Rs.825/- per month.

5. The respondents filed a written statement raising several objections as to the maintainability of the suit itself, such as absence of cause of action, lack of privity of contract between them and the third petitioner. It was also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation.

6. Even while O.S. No.1027 of 1991 was pending, petitioners 1 and 2 filed O.S. No.802 of 1995 against the respondents for specific performance of the agreement to renew the lease. They prayed for a direction to the respondents, to execute a lease deed for period of 9 years from 1.6.1995 to 31.5.2004, i.e. the second spell of renewal.

7. The respondents filed a written statement on the same lines as in O.S. No.1027 of 1991. A further objection was raised that there was no valid lease up to 1.6.1995 and that the question of extending or renewing the same beyond that date does not arise.

8. Apart from different pleas in the written statement, the respondents filed LA NO.118 of 1997 in O.S. No.1027 of 1991 and LA. No.6 of 1998 in O.S. No.802 of 1995 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer to reject the plaints. The applications were opposed by the petitioners, by filing counter-affidavits. Through a common order dated 15.9.1998, the trial Court allowed the applications and rejected the plaints in both the suits. C.RP. Nos.5152 and 5153 of 1998 are filed against LA NO.118 of 1997 and LA No.6 of 1998 respectively. The petitioners have also filed C.M.A Nos.118 and 119 of 1998 in the Court of First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C, against the orders passed in LA. No.118 of 1997 and 6 of 1998 respectively. Thereafter, they filed Transfer C.M.P. Nos.55 and 56 of 1999 before this Court for withdrawal of the C.M. As to this Court so that they can be heard along with C.RP. Nos.5152 and 5153 of 1998, The said Transfer C.M. Ps were al