Judgment : These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of separate, but identical orders wherein the respondents are common. The petitioners in these Civil Revision Petitions are the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.52 and 53 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal. It is their pleaded case that plot Nos.5 and 6, which are suit schedule properties in the above mentioned two suits respectively, were agreed to be sold by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short ‘the APIIC’) and, accordingly, agreements of sale marked as Ex.P9 before the lower Court were entered into between the APIIC and the plaintiffs. The cause of action for the petitioners to file the suits is that the respondents were trying to interfere with their possession. They have, therefore, filed I.A.Nos.410 of 2011 in O.S.No.52 of 2011 and 411 of 2011 in O.S.No.53 of 2011 for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession. The respondents filed counter affidavits wherein they have opposed the relief claimed by the petitioners for injunction. They have pleaded that they were inducted into possession of both the plots, which are now being claimed by the plaintiffs, in the year 1969 by the APIIC and that, subsequently, the APIIC has offered to sell away the plots with two buildings thereon on 02.08.1974, that when the APIIC unilaterally converted the sale consideration paid by the respondents towards rental amounts without any authority and issued notice to resume the land, the respondents filed O.S.No.118 of 1999 and secured an order of temporary injunction. They have, therefore, pleaded that they were never dispossessed. The respondents also filed Exs.R1 to R14, certified copies of pahanies for the years 1997-78 to 2010-11. In I.A.No.410 of 2011 in O.S.No.52 of 2011, on behalf of the petitioners, they have filed Exs.P1 to P14. The respondents have filed Exs.R1 to R21 on their side. In I.A.No.411 of 2011 in O.S.No.53 of 2011, Exs.P1 to P17 were filed on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.R1 to R23 were filed on behalf of the respondents. On appreciation of documentary evidence, the trial Court has disposed of both the I.As., by separate orders, dated 02.09.2011, granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents filed C.M.A.Nos.6 and 7 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Adilabad. On appreciation of documentary evidence, the trial Court has disposed of both the I.As., by separate orders, dated 02.09.2011, granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents filed C.M.A.Nos.6 and 7 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Adilabad. After hearing both parties, the learned District Judge allowed both the C.M.As by reversing the orders passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed these Civil Revision Petitions. have heard Sri T.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel, the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and it is not the function of this Court while exercising such jurisdiction to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 (see Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 195and Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 566). A perusal of the orders of both the Courts below would show that the trial Court was mainly guided by Ex.P2-Panchanama, Ex.P9-Agreement of sale and Ex.P6-Possession Certificate in holding that the petitioners were in possession of the property. It has considered Exs.R1 to R14, which are pahanies filed by the respondents for the years 1997-78 to 2010-11, but declined to give weight to the same in the face of Exs.P2, P6 and P9. The lower appellate Court has re-appreciated the documentary evidence and has concluded that mere agreement of sale will not prove possession. It has also reasoned that when the revenue record maintained by the Tahsildar shows continuous possession of the respondents over the property in question, photocopies of panchanamas under Ex.P2 and possession certificates under Ex.P6 cannot be given precedence over the revenue record. Having carefully considered the respective reasons assigned by the Courts below, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the lower appellate Court in reversing the order of the trial Court is a more plausible view. Having carefully considered the respective reasons assigned by the Courts below, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the lower appellate Court in reversing the order of the trial Court is a more plausible view. Even where two views are possible and the lower appellate Court has preferred to take a particular view, this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, will refrain from substituting its own view with that of the view taken by the lower appellate Court. As noted above, the limited jurisdiction that this Court would exercise under Article 227 is only to see whether the inferior Court has functioned within the limits of its authority. Even while exercising their authority if the Courts have committed errors both of law and fact, this Court will not interfere. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients have invested huge amounts and that if the injunction is not granted in their favour, the respondents are likely to interfere with their possession. As on today, O.S.No.118 of 1999 filed by the respondents in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, and the present suits filed by the petitioners, namely, O.S.Nos.52 and 53 of 2011 filed in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, are pending. The subject matter of these three suits is common and, even if some of the parties are not common, the issues involved therein are identical. Therefore, in order to avoid conflicting judgments and to facilitate the parties to have a comprehensive adjudication of the disputes, it is appropriate that these three suits are disposed of jointly. When this suggestion has fallen from the Bench, both the learned counsel have fairly accepted the same. In the light of these facts, even though no specific application has been filed by either of the parties, it is felt appropriate that these three suits are disposed of at an early date by conducting joint trial in order to ensure that the litigation is brought to a quietus as early as possible. In the light of these facts, even though no specific application has been filed by either of the parties, it is felt appropriate that these three suits are disposed of at an early date by conducting joint trial in order to ensure that the litigation is brought to a quietus as early as possible. For the aforementioned reasons, while declining to interfere with the order of the lower appellate Court, it is directed that O.S.No.118 of 1999 from the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, be transferred to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, to be tried along with O.S.Nos.52 and 53 of 2011. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, is directed to dispose of all the three suits together within a period of three months from today. The lower Court shall fix a schedule for conducting trial on a day-to-day basis. Both parties shall co-operate with the lower Court in disposal of the suits. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.1487 and 1489 of 2012 filed for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous.