1. Since the issue involved in these revisions is common, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these revisions by way of this common order.

2. The defendants in O.S.Nos.58, 60, 59 and 61 of 2014, on the file of the Court of the First Additional District Judge at Ongole, are the petitioners in these revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. CRP.No.2644 of 2015 assails the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the said Court, dismissing I.A.104/2015 in OS.No.58 of 2014 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. CRP.No.2645 of 2015 assails the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the said Court, dismissing I.A.106 of 2015 in O.S.No.60 of 2014 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. CRP.No.2648 of 2015 assails the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the said Court, dismissing I.A.105 of 2015 in O.S.No.59 of 2014 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. CRP.No.2900 of 2015 assails the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the said Court, dismissing I.A.107 of 2015 in O.S.No.61 of 2014 filed by the petitioners herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted the above mentioned suits OS.Nos.58, 60, 59 and 61 of 2014, seeking specific performance of contracts of sale said to have executed by the defendants/petitioners herein. The defendants/petitioners herein filed written statements, denying the plaint averments. In the said suits, defendants/petitioners herein filed the instant IA.Nos.104, 106, 105 and 107 of 2015, respectively, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to club all the four suits and to record evidence in any one of the suit.

8. Resisting the said interlocutory applications, the plaintiff/respondent herein in all the revisions filed counters. The learned First Additional District Judge, Ongole, dismissed the said IA.Nos.104, 106, 105 and 107 of 2015 filed in OS.Nos.58, 60, 59 and 61 of 2014, respectively.

9. Calling in question, the validity and the legal sustainability of the said orders passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Ongole, the present revisions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Heard Sri C.H. Dhanunjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Laxmi Kumaran, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff apart from perusing the material available before the Court.

11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders passed by the learned First Additional District Judge are erroneous, contrary to law and are opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the learned Judge grossly erred in not taking into consideration the averments in the affidavits filed in support of the applications and had the same been considered from proper perspective, the questioned orders would not have emanated. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the subject matter in all the four suits is one and the same and the plaintiff is also the same, as such, the learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the applications. It is further submitted that the relief sought in all the four suits is identical and the contentions are also similar and all the four agreements of sale are of the same date and the witnesses are also the same except one, as such, the Court below ought to have allowed the applications. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in the event of allowing the applications, no prejudice would be caused to the other side. It is further submitted that if a joint trial is ordered, the same would be convenient to all the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners rely on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PREM LALA NAHATA AND ANR. v. CHANDI PRASAD SIKARIA (2007 (2) SCC 551) and STATE BANK OF INDIA v. RA