1. In these revision petitions, this court ordered notice of motion to the contesting respondent.

2. Heard Mr.T.Arulraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr .M.S.Krishan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.

3. As identical questionS have been raised, these two revision petitions are disposed by this common order.

4. It is fairly stated by the counsel on either side that the points that are raised for consideration are identical in both the revision petitions. For the purpose of appreciating the contention, it is not essential to set out the factual matrix in detail in both the revision petitions.

5. C.R.P. No. 3054 of 1998 has been filed challenging the fair and decretal order dated 9. 1998 made in I.A. No. 612 of 1998 in O.S. No. 222 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthagamandalam. Nilgiris District, whereby the court below rejected the application to take out the jurisdictional issue as the preliminary issue. Admittedly the suits have been instituted during the year 1990 and the written statement has been filed during the year 1991. The Interlocutory Application has been taken out on 14. 1998 after examination of