COMMON ORDER:

These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed by defendants in the suits under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the orders of learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram. By the impugned orders, the learned Additional District Judge, declined the prayer of the defendants to consolidate or club the three suits for the purpose of holding a common trial.

2. C.R.P.No.6621 of 2018 impugns the order dated 28.09.2018 in I.A.No.911 of 2018 in O.S.No.62 of 2016 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

3. C.R.P.No.6830 of 2018 impugns the order dated 28.09.2018 in I.A.No.613 of 2018 in O.S.No.65 of 2015 of learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

4. C.R.P.No.6840 of 2018 impugns the order dated 28.09.2018 in I.A.No.903 of 2018 in O.S.No.1 of 2016 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

5. O.S.No.62 of 2016 was instituted on 07.11.2016 by Sri Kanagarla Vijaya Ramakrishna as against Tejaswi Polymers represented by its Managing Partner Sri Meragani Satyanarayana and also against Sri Meragani Satyanarayana seeking for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- based on a promissory note dated 11.11.2013.

6. O.S.No.65 of 2015 was instituted on 20.01.2015 by Sri Kopparti Trimurthulu against Sri Meragani Satyanarayana for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- based on a promissory note dated 10.10.2013.

7. O.S.No.1 of 2016 was instituted on 05.01.2016 by Sri Borra Manikyala Rao against Tejaswi Polymers represented by its Managing Partner Sri Meragani Satyanarayana and five others for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- based on a promissory note dated 13.01.2013.

8. All the above three suits were pending for trial before learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram. Both parties put in their pleadings. Defendants in their written statements, inter alia, contended that there were certain transactions between defendants and Sri Kanagarla Vijaya Rama Krishna, who is plaintiff in O.S.No.62 of 2016 and certain blank promissory notes that were obtained by that plaintiff were retained and utilizing them the said plaintiff set up the other plaintiffs and as a consequence three suits came to be filed.

9. In the context of the above contentions taken up by the defendants in their written statements, the defendants had put in respective applications before the learned Additional District Judge seeking consolidation of these three suits and record common evidence in one of the suits and pass a common judgment. The powers of the trial Court were invoked under Section 151 C.P.C. in all those applications. Elaborate counters were filed by the respondents in those applications wherein they protested for consolidation of the suits.

10. After due enquiry, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed all the three applications filed in all the three suits holding that though the defence of defendants is common, consolidation of suits could not be ordered since plaintiffs in each suit is different from one another and some of the defendants in some of the suits are not defendants in other suits and all the three promissory notes bear different dates and therefore, a joint trial would lead to certain difficulties and therefore, he dismissed those applications.

11. In these revision petitions, the said orders are challenged stating that the impugned orders are cryptic and though the trial Court recorded that certain difficulties would arise in conducting joint trial, it failed to indicate reasons mentioning the kind of difficulties it would encounter. It is further contended that simply because plaintiffs are different that does not debar the Court from consolidating the three suits. That the defence of the defendants is common in all the suits. Consolidation would avoid conflicting judgments and would save the time of the Court. The learned trial Court overlooked all these aspects and passed erroneous orders and therefore, the impugned orders shall be set aside and all the three suits shall be permitted to