JUDGMENT : I. A. No. 2/97 in O.S. 1/97 1. This application filed by defendant No. 1 - State of Andhra Pradesh for rejection of the plaint is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. O.S. No. 1197 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the, learned Attorney General. In our opinion, it is appropriate, in view of the scope of this suit and the other suit No. 2/97, that both these suits are heard by the same Bench but they are not consolidated for the purpose of trial. O.S. No. 2/97 3. Sh. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the State of Karnataka - defendant No.1 and Sh. T.R. Andharujina, learned Solicitor General appearing for the State of Maharashtra - defendant No. 3 refer to the prayer (a) (at page 72 of the Paper Book) and submit that both these States, namely, Karnataka and Maharashtra accept this claim of the plaint of the State of Andhra Pradesh and agree to the grant of relief in this suit in terms of prayer in clause (a) as under: "(a) declare that the report/decision dated 24.12.1973 and the further report/decision dated 27.5.1970 of the Krishna water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) in their entirety are binding upon the three riparian States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and also the Union of India." 4. In other words, there is no controversy in the suit between the plaintiff and defendants I and 3 i.e. Andhra Pradesh Karnataka and Maharashtra and that the report/decision dated 4.12.1973 and the further report/decision dated 27.5.1976 of the Karnataka Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) in their entirety are binding upon the three riparian States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. There is thus no controversy between the three riparian States to this extent. The learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of India submits that he is unable to make any statement today in this behalf as he has to seek instructions in the matter. This statement made by the learned counsel for the three riparian States is placed on record to indicate that a partial decree to this extent on the basis of admission of the defendants (1 and 3 Karnataka and Maharashtra) can be passed and therefore. there is no need to frame any issue to cover this aspect of the suit. I.A. 1/97 in OS 2/97 5. An affidavit of Sh. there is no need to frame any issue to cover this aspect of the suit. I.A. 1/97 in OS 2/97 5. An affidavit of Sh. M.S. Rama Prasad, Superintending Engineer (Inter-State Waters), Water Resources Development Organisation, Irrigation Department of Karnataka Government dated 30th September, 1997 has been filed on behalf of State of Karnataka. In view of the contents of the affidavit, we do not find any pressing need to take up IA 1/97 for consideration at present. The consideration thereto is deferred. 6. For framing of issues, list on 4th November, 1997.