B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. Both these revision petitions are filed by M/s. Nadella Estates Private Limited represented by its Managing Director who is no other than plaintiff in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 and O.S. No. 177 of 2007 respectively pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. Pending the suits for perpetual injunction i.e., O.S. No. 209 of 2005 in respect of Ac.16-06 gts in S. No. 181 and Ac.6-32 Guntas in S. No. 175 of Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal against defendants 1 to 3 and O.S. No. 177 of 2007 also in respect of same survey numbers against 4 defendants therein. It is to say the 3 defendants in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 are Agani Mallaiah, Boda Narayana and Boda Mallaiah, whereas the 4 defendants in O.S. No. 177 of 2007 are Boda Boda Nalin Kumar, Boda Venkatamma, Boda Steven and Boda Suresh. Thus, the two suits maintained by same plaintiffs for self same property and before the same Court one against the three defendants and the other against 4 different defendants. It is pending the suits the third parties total 298 persons representing by their G.P.A. holders V. Rama Mohana Rao, P. Subrahmanyam and V.L.S. Prasada Rao filed I.A. No. 1292 of 2008 in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 and also I.A. No. 1290 of 2008 in O.S. No. 177 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as defendants 4 to 301 in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 and 5 to 302 in O.S. No. 177 of 2007 with claim that they have purchased part and parcel of the land in various survey numbers covered by the plaint schedule (which is same in both the suits). The said petitions were initially dismissed by the learned trial Judge by orders dated 23.09.2013 and when the said third parties who proposed to come on record as co-defendants supra maintained two separate revisions vide C.R.P. No. 4738 and 4481 of 2013 before this Court vide separate orders by this Court (another bench) dated 27.12.2013 set aside the dismissal order and restored the two petitions by remitted for consideration afresh. Thus, the I.A. No. 1292 and 1290 respectively in the two suits filed by same third parties to come on record as co-defendants are not pending before the trial Court.

2. It is while so, the proposed parties filed applications to receive documents which are certified copies of sale deeds in support of their contention of their purchases for part of the respective plaint schedule in showing they are the necessary parties to come on record in opposing the suit lis of the plaintiff in both suits.

3. It is while so, the plaintiff in both suits M/s. Nadella Estates Limited in the pending, third parties implead applications viz., in I.A. No. 1292 of 2008 in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 filed I.A. No. 316 of 2014 and equally I.A. No. 1290 of 2008 in O.S. No. 177 of 2007 filed I.A. No. 317 of 2014, for the self same purpose under Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C. to summon the deponent of I.A. No. 1292 of 2008 as well as I.A. No. 1290 of 2008 for the purpose of cross-examination to elicit the truth with averments that in filing the applications in I.A. No. 1292 and 1290 of 2008 respectively the deponent misrepresented the facts and have taken inconsistent stand. The I.A. No. 316 of 2014 and I.A. No. 317 of 2014 were ended in dismissal by separate orders of the learned trial Judge dated 30.06.2014.

4. It is now, impugning said dismissal orders (of summoning for cross-examination of the deponent of the implead petitions) the present revisions are maintained viz., C.R.P. No. 2548 of 2014 against I.A. No. 316 of 2014 and C.R.P. No. 2551 of 2014 against I.A. No. 317 of 2014 respectively with self same grounds of revision in both with contentions as well as the oral submissions of the said revision petitioner in both that the impugned orders of the learned trial Judge are bad in law, contrary to facts on record and liable to be set aside and the trial Court failed to see that in the suit for bare injunction with specific cause of action confined to respective defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 an