ORDER This C.R.P. is filed against the order dated 9-12-2002 passed by the learned 151 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in I.A. No.1 067 of 2002 in I.A. No.2124 of 1988 in O.S. No.168 of 1988. 2. The second respondent herein filed O.S. No.168 of 1988 for recovery of certain amount against one K. Dhanraju and others. He filed I.A. No.1380 of 1988 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC and secured an order of attachment before judgment against a fishing boat. The petitioner herein filed IA No.2124 of 1988 with a prayer to raise the attachment alleging that the boat was hypothecated to them. It was also pleaded that the petitioner has filed O.S. No.45 of 1990 against K. Dhanraju for recovery of the amount. 3. The enquiry into the LA. No.2124 of 1988 and trial of O.S. NO.168 of 1988 were pending. LA. No.192 of 2001 was filed in that suit with a prayer to club I.A. No.2124 of 1988 with O.S. No.45 of 1990, obvriously because they were pending in the same Court. At a later stage, on behalf of the first respondent, who is the defendant No.7 in O.S. NO.168 of 1988, an application being I.A. No.1067 of 2002 was filed with a prayer to separate the claim petition in I.A. No.2124 of 1988 in O.S. No.168 of 1988 from O.S. No.45 of 1990. The I.A. was resisted by the petitioner herein and a detailed counter affidavit was filed. The Trial Court passed an elaborate order dated 9-12-2002 allowing the I.A. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.2 is served. Though notice was sent twice to the first respondent to the same address as furnished in the suit proceedings, it was returned with an endorsement not known. This Court is constrained to observe that the first respondent is trying to avoid the notice and the same is taken as having been served. 5. The claim petition submitted by the petitioner herein, in the form of I.A. No.2124 of 1988 in I.A. No.1380 of 1988 in O.S. No.168 of 1988, was clubbed with the other suit, namely, O.S. No.45 of 1990 through a specific order passed in I.A. No.192 of 2001. It is not known as to what difficulty the seventh defendant in O.S. No.168 of 1988, I.e., the first respondent herein, had felt on account of such clubbing. It is not known as to what difficulty the seventh defendant in O.S. No.168 of 1988, I.e., the first respondent herein, had felt on account of such clubbing. In fact, the subject matter of O.S. No.45 of 1990 and the claim petition in I.A. No.2124 of 1988 are one and the same. Further, both the proceedings were pending in the same Court. 6. It is rather strange that the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking separation of the claim petition in I.A. No.2124 of 1988 and O.S. No.45 of 1990, was sworn to by the counsel for the first respondent. The only basis pleaded by him runs as under: "I am the Advocate for the 7th respondent in the claim petition I.A. No.2124 of 1988. I submit that without giving an opportunity to us the petition to club with claim petition along with the suit 0.S.No.450f1990wasaliowed.1 submit that the claim petition and the suit cannot be clubbed. I submit that they have to be tried separately." 7. Basically, an Advocate is not supposed to file affidavits in any proceedings except where certain facts relating to his conducting of the case are required to be stated. Any relief, be it final or interlocutory, must be claimed on the strength of the pleadings made by the parties and not the Advocates. 8. The plea put forward by the counsel for the first respondent was that he was not given an opportunity while clubbing the claim petition with the suit. If that be so, the only course open to him was to file an application seeking review or modification of the order in I.A. No.192 of 2001. Further curious part of the matter is that neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants in O.S. No.168 of 1988 were made parties in I.A. No.1067 of 2002. It is rather unfortunate that the trial Court ignored these vital aspects and proceeded to order the I.A. On merits also the approach of the trial Court cannot be sustained. When the subject matter of the claim petition in I.A. No.2124 of 1988 filed in O.S. No.168 of 1988 and the one in O.S. No.45 of 1990 pending in the same Court, is one and the same, the trial Court ought not to have acceded to the request made on behalf of the first respondent. 9. When the subject matter of the claim petition in I.A. No.2124 of 1988 filed in O.S. No.168 of 1988 and the one in O.S. No.45 of 1990 pending in the same Court, is one and the same, the trial Court ought not to have acceded to the request made on behalf of the first respondent. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is hereby set aside. 10. The suits are pending for more than one and half decades. The trial Court shall undertake trial on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same by the end of July 2006. Any failure in this regard would be taken as a serious dereliction.