ORDER :

The defendant in money suits made an effort to have all the three suits consolidated and tried together, but the learned trial Court declined his prayers and that resulted in filing of the present revision petitions whereunder the revision petitioner in each of these three revisions seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and request to rectify the orders of the Court below. In all the three revisions, the revision petitioner is common and the respondent in each of these revision petitions is different. However, the facts and law that have come up for consideration are common in all the three revisions and therefore, all the three revisions are disposed of by this common order.

2. O.S.No.38 of 2017 is a suit for recovery of money based on the foot of a promissory note of Rs.7,50,000/-filed against Sri Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju. O.S.No.39 of 2017 is a suit for recovery of money based on the foot of a promissory note of Rs.12,00,000/-filed against Sri Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju. O.S.No.40 of 2017 is a suit for recovery of money based on the foot of a promissory note of Rs.10,00,000/-filed against Sri Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju.

3. All the above three suits were filed before learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole. The defendant therein, who is common in all the three suits, put up his appearance and filed his written statement in each of the suits and thereafter, in each of the suits, he moved interlocutory applications under Section 151 C.P.C. He filed I.A.No.268 of 2018 in O.S.No.38 of 2017. He filed I.A.No.267 of 2018 in O.S.No.39 of 2017. He filed I.A.No.266 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2017.

4. In all the above three applications, his prayer was for clubbing the suits and to hold a joint trial recording common evidence. The respondent in each of these applications filed their objections by way of a counter. Learned trial Court, after hearing submissions on both sides and after going through the material on record, passed separate orders in each of those interlocutory applications and orders in I.A.Nos.266 and 268 of 2018 were passed on 04.12.2018. Orders in I.A.No.267 of 2018 were passed on 05.12.2018. The request of consolidation was declined by the trial Court on the premise that the plaintiff in each of those suits is different from one another and the consideration that passed under each of those pronotes is different and therefore, in the opinion of the trial Court, no case was made out to have joint or common trial. It was with that reasoning those applications were dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by those orders, the losing defendant has come up with these revision petitions.

6. C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.268 of 2018. C.R.P.No.1172 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.267 of 2018. C.R.P.No.1217 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.266 of 2018. In all the three revision petitions, the contentions raised are same.

7. The plaints filed in all the three suits would show that all the three pronotes that were attributed to defendant were dated 30.07.2016. Each of the plaints also discloses that the defendant in those suits is their close relative and when the borrowing took place from one of them similar borrowings took place from the family members of each of the plaintiffs on the same day. The mother, her son and her daughter-in-law happened to be the plaintiffs in each of these suits. In each of the suits, the defendant filed written statements wherein his stand is common. It is stated that his uncle was Sri Rudraraju Narasimha Raju and on earlier occasions, towards family adjustments, he made remittances amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- in favour of the defendant during the years 2013 and 2014 and it was in that context the defendant subscribed his signatures on pronotes leaving rest of the columns blank and gave them to him and during subsequent periods, the defendant repaid the amounts to his uncle, but the unfilled signed b