HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.930 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-01-2007 in I.A.No.2281 of 2006 in O.S.No.134 of 2002, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, wherein the said petition filed for clubbing the two suits O.S.Nos.132 and 134 of 2002 for joint trial, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appeared for the respondent, though served with notices. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2002. He filed the said suit for recovery of certain amount alleged to be due under a promissory note executed by the respondent/defendant. The defendant filed written statement denying his liability for the suit amount and contending that the suit pronote was a fabricated document. According to him, he borrowed Rs.1 lakh along with his father in the year 1990 from P.Ramabhadraraju and the said creditor obtained two blank pronotes and a stamp paper and subsequently the debt was discharged, but the blank pronotes and stamp paper were not returned and Ramabhadraju insisted for payment of more amount and as the defendant did not comply with the demand, the creditor fabricated pronote in the name of the petitioner therein and got the suit O.S.No.134 of 2002 filed and the said Ramabhadraraju himself filed O.S.No.132 of 2002 based on a mortgage. The first respondent/defendant filed I.A.No.2281 of 2006 for clubbing the two suits for joint trial. The petitioner/ plaintiff opposed the same on the ground that the cause of action for the two suits is distinct and separate and the plaintiff herein has nothing to do with the plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2002 and the plaintiff herein is a stranger to the alleged suit transaction alleged in O.S.No.132 of 2002 and except the fact that the two suits are filed agianst the same defendant, there is no other feature of commonality between the two suits. The trial Court, however, by the impugned order allowed the application to club the two suits for joint trail, observing that it would save time and also avoid conflict of decisions. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. Admittedly, the plaintiffs in the two suits are different and there is nothing on record to show that they are in any way connected with each other. The transaction covered by O.S.No.134 of 2002 is based on the execution of the alleged promissory note, whereas the suit O.S.No.132 of 2002 is based on a mortgage. The cause of action for the two suits is also distinct and separate. In fact, the trial Court also observed in the impugned order that “it is true that cause of action are distinct”. The issues that arise for consideration in both the suits are also distinct and separate, as also the evidence to be adduced in respect of the same. The burden of proof squarely remains on the respective plaintiffs to establish the suit claims in view of the categorical denial of liability by the defendant. The evidence that has to be let in, in the two suits is also not common, as the witnesses to be examined to prove the two suit transactions are also different. Under those circumstances, the cause of action in the two suits being different, the nature of the two suits being distinct and the evidence to be adduced in both the suits not being one and the same, clubbing of the two suits for joint trial is not warranted, simply because the defendant in both the suits happens to be one and the same person. However, for the sake of convenience to the parties, the trial in both the suits can be held simultaneously, if not jointly. 5. Under those circumstances, it is held that the impugned order directing clubbing of the suits O.S.Nos.132 and 134 of 2002 is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim stay of trial granted on 09-03-2007 stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th June, 2010. Lrkm. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.930 OF 2007 Between:- Kanumuri Venkata Parvathi …Petitioner A n d Mopidevi Subbarao …Respondent