Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Kesri Nath Tripathi,Sri Umesh Chandra,Sri Rakesh Dwivedi,Senior Advocates, assisted by Sri Sudeep Kumar, Pankaj Bhagwat,Mukesh Prasad, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri R.N. Trivedi,Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Agarwal,learned Counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the contesting parties are before the Court and as such the issuance of notice to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 be dispensed with and the revisions be decided finally at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, as consented by the Counsel for the parties, issuance of notice to the opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 is dispensed with and the matter is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
(2.) Aforementioned all the three civil revisions have been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the common orders dated 29.3.2010 whereby the application preferred in Regular Suit No. 1192 of 2008, by opposite party No.4 under Order VI Rule 17and under Order XXVI Rule9and 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure were allowed whereas the application preferred by the Revisionist-defendant under Order I Rule 1, Order VII Rule 11 read with Rule 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.
(3.) As all the aforesaid civil revisions arise out of the order dated 29.3.2010 passed in Regular Suit No. 1192 of 2008 on the aforesaid three individual applications by the Trial Court and the common question of law is involved, therefore, all the revisions are being decided by a common order.;