K. HARILAL, J.

1. The revision petitioners 1 to 3 in all these Revision Petitions are one and the same, a Private Ltd. Company, its Director and the Branch Office respectively. The common order passed in I.A. No.2851/10 in O.S. No.71/10, I.A. No.2849/10 in O.S. No.65/10 and I.A. No.2852/10 in O.S. No.66/10 on the files of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, is challenged respectively in the above Revision Petitions. All the above Original Suits are filed by the respective respondents in all these Revision Petitions against the revision petitioners. Thus, though the plaintiffs in all the suits are different, the defendants are one and the same.

2. The above suits are instituted for recovery of money from the revision petitioners/defendants. The parties are referred to as in the Original Suit. The first defendant company was involved in a network marketing in health-care products in India. The products are sold by "independent distributors" and through "Words of Mouth" Advertisements only. The second defendant is the Director of the first defendant company and the third defendant is the first defendant's branch office in Kerala. The plaintiffs joined the network of the first