IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6055 OF 2009 Between : V.Narayana Reddy …PETITIONER A N D Y.Gopinath and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6055 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 01.12.2009, in Tr.O.P.No.419 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 24 C.P.C. was allowed 2. Heard both sides. 3. For better appreciation of the facts, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court. 4. The respondent No.3 herein filed the suit O.S.No.1500 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for injunction simplicitor against respondent No.2 herein. The said suit was transferred and re-numbered as O.S.No.271 of 2008, on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. The respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.2807 of 2007, on the file of VIII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein for enforcement of contract of sale basing on the agreement of sale dated.28.03.1987. The parties in O.S.No.271 of 2008 let in their evidence and after hearing arguments, the case is posted for Judgment. In the suit O.S.No.2807 of 2007, on the file of VIII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, issues have been framed and it is coming up for trial and the trial has not yet commenced. At this stage this transfer petition is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, which was allowed by the order impugned. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner herein contended that issues that are to be decided in both the suits are entirely different and distinct; that while the relief sought in O.S.No.2807 of 2007 is in relation to the enforcement of agreement of sale dated 28.03.1987, whereas O.S.No.271 of 2008 is filed for injunction simplicitor and thus the issues in O.S.No.2807 of 2007, are entirely different and distinct with that of the injunction suit; that the trial of the O.S.No.2807 of 2007 has not yet commenced; that the present petition is filed to drag on the proceedings, for about twenty years, and the agreement holder has not filed any suit for specific performance, and therefore, it is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the main issues to be decided in both suits are whether the General Power Attorney executed in favour of the third respondent herein by her husband is genuine and whether the husband of respondent No.3 executed any will in her favour, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. In a suit for injunction simplicitor, the issues to be decided are whether the petitioner has proved the prima facie title, and whether the petitioner was in possession of the property by the date of filing of the suit, and whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and if injunction is not granted, irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner. Whereas in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to establish that agreement of sale is validly executed and that the petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant was not coming forward to execute a registered sale deed. 8. General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.2807 of 2007. The trial of the suit is yet to be commenced. The agreement of sale is said to have been executed about 19 years prior to the filing of the suit. Whereas the injunction simplicitor was filed in the year 2002 itself, and the entire evidence was let in and it is posted for Judgment. The issues to be decided in both the suits are entirely different and distinct. As hereinbefore stated, entirely different issues to be resolved are involved in both the suits. Further there would be no conflict of decisions, if the suits are tried by two different courts, because the reliefs sought for, in both the suits are entirely different and distinct. Therefore, filing of such a petition at a belated stage especially when a specific direction was given by this Court to dispose of O.S.No.271 of 2008, on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, as per the orders in C.R.P.No.3809 of 2007 dated 26.10.2007, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order is only to drag on the matter. So, in such circumstances, the petition under Section 24 C.P.C. ought not to have been ordered by the learned District Judge. 9. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J JUNE 11, 2010 YVL