paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, submitted that when both the parties viz., the appellant and the respondents have filed two separate suits, one by the appellant for declaration of the settlement deed dated 26.6.2012 is void with a consequential relief of permanent injunction and another suit by the defendants for a bare injunction and considering the fact that the parties are one and the same and the property is also one and the same, they decided to take up both the suits together for a common trial. Accordingly, they also filed a joint memo signed by both the counsels for the plaintiff and defendants before the trial Court praying for a joint trial of the suit O.S.No.6118 of 2009 and O.S.No.5401 of 2003. Though the trial Court has recorded the memo as prayed for, but in its diary it has allowed the memo but ordered for separate trial, therefore, the first appellate Court has rightly set aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, which is not in conformity with law on the facts of the case, and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for a joint trial along with the pending suit in O.S.No.5401 of 2003. Since the order of remand passed is in conformity with the joint memo signed by both the counsels for the defendants and the plaintiff for a common trial, since both the parties are one and the same and the property is also one and the same in both the suits, interfering with the impugned order is absolutely uncalled for, he pleaded.
