ORDER : The defendant in money suits made an effort to have all the three suits consolidated and tried together, but the learned trial Court declined his prayers and that resulted in filing of the present revision petitions whereunder the revision petitioner in each of these three revisions seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and request to rectify the orders of the Court below. In all the three revisions, the revision petitioner is common and the respondent in each of these revision petitions is different. However, the facts and law that have come up for consideration are common in all the three revisions and therefore, all the three revisions are disposed of by this common order. 2. O.S.No.38 of 2017 is a suit for recovery of money based on the foot of a promissory note of Rs.7,50,000/-filed against Sri Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju. O.S.No.39 of 2017 is a suit for recovery of money based on the foot of a promissory note of Rs.12,00,000/-filed against Sri Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju. O.S.No.40 of 2017 is a suit for recovery of money based on the foot of a promissory note of Rs.10,00,000/-filed against Sri Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju. 3. All the above three suits were filed before learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole. The defendant therein, who is common in all the three suits, put up his appearance and filed his written statement in each of the suits and thereafter, in each of the suits, he moved interlocutory applications under Section 151 C.P.C. He filed I.A.No.268 of 2018 in O.S.No.38 of 2017. He filed I.A.No.267 of 2018 in O.S.No.39 of 2017. He filed I.A.No.266 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2017. 4. In all the above three applications, his prayer was for clubbing the suits and to hold a joint trial recording common evidence. The respondent in each of these applications filed their objections by way of a counter. Learned trial Court, after hearing submissions on both sides and after going through the material on record, passed separate orders in each of those interlocutory applications and orders in I.A.Nos.266 and 268 of 2018 were passed on 04.12.2018. Orders in I.A.No.267 of 2018 were passed on 05.12.2018. Learned trial Court, after hearing submissions on both sides and after going through the material on record, passed separate orders in each of those interlocutory applications and orders in I.A.Nos.266 and 268 of 2018 were passed on 04.12.2018. Orders in I.A.No.267 of 2018 were passed on 05.12.2018. The request of consolidation was declined by the trial Court on the premise that the plaintiff in each of those suits is different from one another and the consideration that passed under each of those pronotes is different and therefore, in the opinion of the trial Court, no case was made out to have joint or common trial. It was with that reasoning those applications were dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by those orders, the losing defendant has come up with these revision petitions. 6. C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.268 of 2018. C.R.P.No.1172 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.267 of 2018. C.R.P.No.1217 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.266 of 2018. In all the three revision petitions, the contentions raised are same. 7. The plaints filed in all the three suits would show that all the three pronotes that were attributed to defendant were dated 30.07.2016. Each of the plaints also discloses that the defendant in those suits is their close relative and when the borrowing took place from one of them similar borrowings took place from the family members of each of the plaintiffs on the same day. The mother, her son and her daughter-in-law happened to be the plaintiffs in each of these suits. In each of the suits, the defendant filed written statements wherein his stand is common. It is stated that his uncle was Sri Rudraraju Narasimha Raju and on earlier occasions, towards family adjustments, he made remittances amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- in favour of the defendant during the years 2013 and 2014 and it was in that context the defendant subscribed his signatures on pronotes leaving rest of the columns blank and gave them to him and during subsequent periods, the defendant repaid the amounts to his uncle, but the unfilled signed blank pronotes were retained by his uncle as they were not traced and subsequently, in the year 2015 his uncle died. Thereafter his wife, son and daughter-in-law misutilizing those unfilled signed blank pronotes have come up with these three separate suits filed by each of them. Thereafter his wife, son and daughter-in-law misutilizing those unfilled signed blank pronotes have come up with these three separate suits filed by each of them. He also stated that suit pronotes are forged and fabricated. He further stated that each of the plaintiffs is related to one another and scribe of all the three pronotes is same and one of the attestors is same in all the three pronotes and one of the plaintiffs is one of the attestors in the rest of the two pronotes. It was with these factual context, he made out his pleadings. 8. In the context of the above pleadings on both sides, the defendant in the suits filed the above referred interlocutory applications invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 151 C.P.C. with a request to consolidate the suits and try them together recording common evidence so that the time for disposal of the cases would be minimal and common trial would obviate the need for repeating the evidence. In the counters filed resisting those applications, the respondents, who were plaintiffs in the suits, stated that there was no justification for consolidating the matters and simultaneous trial of those suits would be sufficient and they stated that consolidation of suits was impermissible since each plaintiff has got his own independent case and the documents on which they relied on were independent from one another. Learned trial Court, on considering the rival contentions, took the view that it did not find need to have consolidated trial and therefore, dismissed the applications. 9. In the present revision petitions, after narrating the background of all the above facts, the revision petitioner contends that the defence in all the suits is one and the same and a common trial would have saved lot of time of the Court since scribe and one of the attestors is also same. It is stated that these vital aspects were not properly considered by the trial Court and therefore, the impugned orders shall be set aside as otherwise it would cause grave prejudice to the revision petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for revision petitioner argued all these aspects. 11. Learned counsel for respondents reiterating the contentions raised before the trial Court supported the reasoning afore stated in the impugned orders and stated that they are not the cases for revisions and the revisions shall be dismissed. 12. 10. Learned counsel for revision petitioner argued all these aspects. 11. Learned counsel for respondents reiterating the contentions raised before the trial Court supported the reasoning afore stated in the impugned orders and stated that they are not the cases for revisions and the revisions shall be dismissed. 12. It is in the background of above facts, the point that falls for consideration is: “Whether non-consolidation of suits would result in miscarriage of justice and whether the impugned orders suffer from any fundamental infirmities so as to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?” 13. Point: On every cause of action, the plaintiff could seek a relief as against the defendant. The procedure to try a civil suit is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On certain occasions, situations may develop where a suit instead of being considered alone would need be considered along with another suit. For instance, where subject matter of dispute is a residential premises or an agricultural land and that is in the occupation of a tenant or a lessee and in the event of a dispute between the landlord and tenant, the tenant finding an aggressive landlord may seek to protect his possession and seek a perpetual injunction against the landlord to prevent his unlawful interference. At about some time, the landlord having found a recalcitrant tenant not vacating the premises despite expiry of period of lease may sue his tenant seeking his ejectment and recovery of possession. Thus, the dispute may have given rise to two different suits for two different reliefs. It is in such occasion, the trial Court instead of trying both the matters separately may hold a joint trial or consolidate trial which means the evidence could be recorded in one of the comprehensive suits and that evidence would cover the disputes raised in both the suits and finally, a common judgment disposing of both the suits could be made. The reason for such consolidation is normally understood as one to avoid conflicting decisions. To have consistency of opinion on same facts leading to uniform decisions is one of the primary objectives that is to be achieved by any Court of law. 14. In what other matters consolidation of trials need to take place cannot be stated extensively. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not made a particular provision prescribing the parameters for consolidation of suits. 14. In what other matters consolidation of trials need to take place cannot be stated extensively. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not made a particular provision prescribing the parameters for consolidation of suits. Therefore, as and when parties to the litigation and the Court trying them find it necessary to have a consolidated trial, the powers under Section 151 C.P.C., which speak about the powers that are inherent with every Court, are utilized. Broadly stated, this is how consolidation of suits takes place. In the context of above undisputed situation, now the case at hand has to be seen. The three separate suits filed by three different plaintiffs are to be tried separately in the normal course. It may be noted that all the pronotes had allegedly came into existence on the same day and though all the plaintiffs are related to one another so also the defendant in the suit is related to them, those factors by themselves do not make it a case of same transaction or series of transaction concerning each of the plaintiffs. To put it in other words, these three plaintiffs cannot join together and file one single suit as against the defendant. When that being the case, the inclination of the trial Court to have the suits tried separately cannot be found fault with. Trying each suit separately is the normal mode that is provided for under the law. Consolidation is an exception. Be it noted that each Court has wide discretionary power to control the conduct of proceedings before it (vide Prem Lala Nahata Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, (2007) 2 SCC 551 at 562). Therefore, the order of the trial Court in not consolidating the three suits does not by itself cannot be termed as violation of any particular law especially that of any statute. 15. However, learned counsel for revision petitioner cited a judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Parimi Venkata Rao Vs. P.A.V.V.T. Jagapathiraju (vide C.R.P.No.1976 of 1982). That was also a case of multiple suits with common defendant wherein the common defence of the defendant was about the fact that he was a small farmer and was entitled for the benefits of Act 7 of 1977. The trial Court declined for consolidation of the suits and aggrieved defendant moved a revision under Section 115 C.P.C. to revise those orders. The trial Court declined for consolidation of the suits and aggrieved defendant moved a revision under Section 115 C.P.C. to revise those orders. This Court considered the facts and held that since nature of the suits is same and the defendant is common and the main evidence of defendant is common in all the suits it was found that it was in the expedient interest of justice to have the joint trial. It was with that view this Court allowed the revision on the ground that non-consideration of such aspects by the trial Court amounted to material irregularity. 16. A plain reading of the above ruling would certainly gave enough support to the revision petitioner to have his prayer ordered. However, one should keep in mind that the above ruling was stated on 24.11.1983 and thereafter, there was change in the law for Section 115 C.P.C./revisional jurisdiction. Act 46 of 1999 which came into force on 01.07.2002 has brought in a proviso in Section 115 C.P.C. The same is extracted hereunder for convenience: “Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.” 17. The above proviso would show that it is not that every order passed by the trial Court could be revised by the High Court. The above proviso would also show that had the order been passed by the trial Court in favour of the revision petitioner that should have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In the case at hand, refusal to consolidate the suits did not result in disposal of the suits. Ordering consolidation of suits could not also dispose of the suits. The orders passed are merely procedural in nature. No harm is caused to the rights and obligations of each of the parties in each of the suits. No prejudice is caused to anyone if the trial in each of the suits is conducted separately. Since the above said ruling of this Court was under Section 115 C.P.C. and subsequent to that Code of Civil Procedure was amended, the said ruling does not help the revision petitioner. No prejudice is caused to anyone if the trial in each of the suits is conducted separately. Since the above said ruling of this Court was under Section 115 C.P.C. and subsequent to that Code of Civil Procedure was amended, the said ruling does not help the revision petitioner. Moreover, the present revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and that is done perhaps for the reason that the disputed orders could not be processed under Section 115 C.P.C. by virtue of the amendment that was effected to that provision. 18. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited the judgment in Prem Lala Nahata’s case (supra). That was a case where the questions of misjoinder of causes of action and rejection of plaint on that premise arose and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was in the process of taking a decision of such aspect, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found relevance to say certain aspects about the consolidation of suits and at para No.18 it was stated that consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are, by order of the Court, combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises when the reliefs claimed arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions. It is on this principle, learned counsel for revision petitioner substantiates his contentions. While all those principles are very important it may be noted that they are not mandatory prescriptions for consolidation of suits but they are merely guiding factors for the trial Courts to consider the aspect of consolidation. This Court in Arka Lakshmi Manohari Vs. Pillamogolla Ranga Rao, (2015) 6 ALT 448 considered the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and finally stated that all those broad principles by themselves need not necessarily make one to take a decision for consolidation and always one has to keep in mind whether non-consolidation of suits would result in conflicting decisions. Pillamogolla Ranga Rao, (2015) 6 ALT 448 considered the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and finally stated that all those broad principles by themselves need not necessarily make one to take a decision for consolidation and always one has to keep in mind whether non-consolidation of suits would result in conflicting decisions. What is important in this ruling is that this Court took the view that an innocuous order of the trial Court in its disagreement to consolidate the suits by itself has not caused any prejudice to either of the parties and all the transactions have not come up commonly. Citing various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court took the view in a similar matter that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised unless the impugned order is patently perverse and is vitiated by fundamental infirmities. Viewed from that angle, this Court does not find any fundamental infirmity in the order of the trial Court nor the order of the trial Court could be termed as perverse when the trial Court took the decision to try each suit separately. The trial Court shall keep in mind that conducting simultaneous trial of all the three suits before it would certainly be convenient for Court as well as parties. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in these revision petitions. The point is answered against the revision petitioner. 19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.