(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 09.08.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in I.A.No,344 of 2008 in O.S.No,32 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.
(2.) A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision would run thus:The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No,32 of 2005 for recovery of money. On plaintiff's side, PW1 was examined and he was also cross-examined. At that stage, the I.A.No,344 of 2008 was filed by the revision petitioner/defendant herein seeking the following relief:"this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/defendant to proceed with this case and jointly along with I.P.5/07 on the file of this Honourable Court in the interest of justice and thus render justice."After hearing both the sides, the lower Court dismissed it. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds inter alia thus:The issues involved in the O.S.No,32 of 2005 and in I.P.No,5 of 2007 are one and the same and as such, ordering joint trial would meet the ends of justice but the trial Court without understanding the real purport of law simply dismissed it.
(3.) IN this factual matrix, it is glaringly and pellucidly, palpably and explicitly clear, so to say, as clear as day, that in the I.P filed by the revision petitioner/defendant, there are as many as 12 respondents and various debts are contemplated as found described in the schedule appended to the I.P. As such, certainly the proceedings in the I.P would be a long drawn process. Whereas in the suit O.S. No,32 of 2005 only one debt is contemplated and the trial is in progress and within a short span of time the money suit O.S.No,32 of 2005 is expected to be disposed of legally. Once adjudication is made in this suit, the certified copy of the judgment would be taken as such as evidence in the I.P proceedings.