ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the correctness of the order of the trial Court when it refused to consolidate two civil suits and conduct common trial.

2. A brief narration of facts is required to be noticed here so as to appreciate the contentions raised here:

One Mr.B.Konda Reddy filed O.S.No.118 of 2015 before learned Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur seeking for partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and for permanent injunction and for costs and such other reliefs. Plaint schedule contains item No.1. It further contains item No.2 consisting of a,b,c parcels of land. The suit was laid against 12 defendants. It is mentioned in the plaint that item No.1 is an ancestral property and item No.2 was acquired by utilising the nucleus of the ancestral property. That there was one B.Sesha reddy and he has three sons and they all constituted a joint family. One such son is Sri Rama Swami Reddy and plaintiff is his son. Another such son is Sri Venkat Reddy and defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 are his sons. Another such son is Sri Rami Reddy and his wife is defendant No.4 namely B.Siddamma and his children are defendant Nos.5,6 and 7. Claiming share in these properties and seeking division of it in accordance with their succession and inheritance, the said suit was laid. The plaint further refers about a registered gift deed dated 13.04.2015 executed by the plaintiff in favour of his wife concerning item No.2 of the plaint schedule.

3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the above suit filed O.S.No.103 of 2015 as against Sri B.Konda Reddy (plaintiff in O.S.No.118 of 2015) and his wife B.Saraswathi and the said suit was filed before the same Court, namely, the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur. The relief claimed in the suit is a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs. The immovable property in dispute in that injunction suit shown in the plaint schedule is about AC.0.78 Cents of land in Survey No.438/3 in Gudipadu Village of Duvvur Mandal of Kadapa District. This very piece of land is shown as item No.2(b) in plaint schedule in O.S.No.118 of 2015. In this suit for injunction the registered gift deed dated 13.04.2015 mentioned in the other suit was questioned.

4. As seen earlier, both the civil suits are pending before the same Court. One item of immovable property is common in both the suits. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 in one suit are also parties in the injunction suit. It was in the above referred circumstances, the defendants in the suit for injunction filed I.A.No.376 of 2019 requesting the learned trial Court to club both the suits and conduct joint trial. The plaintiffs in the injunction suit are the respondents in that application and they reported no counter. Thus, both parties to the said application agreed that it would be in the interest of justice to have both the suits consolidated and trial conducted. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur refused to grant the prayer stating that parties to both the suits are not common and the boundaries mentioned for AC.0.78 Cents of land in Survey No.438/3 differ from one suit to the other and therefore it felt that consolidated trial could not be conducted.

5. Aggrieved by it, the petitioners in that application therein have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. For respondents, learned counsel appeared and reported no objection to allow this Civil Revision Petition. Thus, both before trial Court as well as this Court, the parties and their counsel believe that these two suits could be tried jointly. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that the grounds on which the petition for consolidation of suits was dismissed as erroneous and is against law and that the learned trial Court ignored the facts and considered irrelevant material and reached