IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2883 OF 2007 Between:- S.Bharath Bushan Rao …Petitioner A n d M.Jayarami Reddy and another …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2883 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13-04-2007 in T.O.P.No.135 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the petition filed by the first respondent herein seeking withdrawal of O.S.No.167 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur and to transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa for being tried along with O.S.No.184 of 2003, was allowed. 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents are heard. Perused the records. 3. O.S.No.184 of 2003 was filed by the second respondent herein against the first respondent before the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,55,145/- said to be due under a promissory note. According to the second respondent herein, the first respondent borrowed Rs.1,87,000/- from him under a promissory note dated 30-10-2007 promising to repay the same with interest at 30% per annum, but failed to discharge the debt. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.167 of 2004 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur against the petitioner herein for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 27-12-2000 in respect of the schedule property executed between the plaintiff and defendant was null and void and the same be cancelled. According to the first respondent, he had monetary dealings with the second respondent herein, who is none other than brother-in-law of the petitioner and on account of financial crisis, the first respondent could not discharge the debt which became time barred and owing to the pressure from the petitioner, he executed a nominal promissory note in favour of the second respondent for Rs.1,87,000/- and the first respondent executed nominal sale deed dated 27-12-2000 in favour of petitioner at the instance of second respondent with the hope that the petitioner would re-convey the property in favour of the first respondent after settlement of the dispute with the second respondent. The first respondent further contended in his suit O.S.No.167 of 2000 that he discharged the amount of Rs.1,87,000/- though it was barred by time, but the second respondent did not return the promissory note stating that it was in possession of the petitioner herein but, however, got the suit filed on the basis of the promissory note. The first respondent, therefore, alleges that the second respondent and his brother-in-law, the petitioner, played fraud on him to knock the schedule property. Thus, it can be seen that the contentions raised by the parties in both the suits relate to the same transaction and they are interconnected. The evidence to be adduced in one suit would certainly have a bearing over the evidence to be adduced in the other suit. The plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 1984 is the defendant in O.S.No.184 of 2003 i.e., first respondent herein. No doubt, the plaintiff in O.S.No.184 of 2003, who is the second respondent herein, and the defendant in O.S.No.167 of 2007, the petitioner herein, are different persons, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but according to the first respondent herein, the petitioner is none else than the brother-in-law of the second respondent and both of them have colluded and conspired and played fraud against the first respondent both in obtaining the promissory note and subsequently in obtaining the sale deed and in filing the suit based on a promissory note without returning the same after the debt was discharged. The first respondent, therefore, filed the suit O.S.No.167 of 2004 for cancellation of the sale deed alleging fraud. 4. For a comprehensive resolution of the entire dispute, it is only just and proper that both the suits are tried together. The learned District Judge has rightly held that it is only reasonable to order trial of the two suits by the same court to avoid conflict of decisions, as the issues involved in both the suits are interconnected. In view of the factual matrix as projected through the pleadings in both the suits by the parities, it is desirable in the interest of justice that both the suits are tried jointly by the same court. The impugned order of the learned District Judge withdrawing the suit O.S.No.167 of 2004 from the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur and transferring the same to the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa for being tried and disposed of along with O.S.No.184 of 2003, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th July 2010 Lrkm.