HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.400 OF 2008 DATE:21-12-2010 BETWEEN Tikkala Lakshmi Kanthamma …Petitioner AND Peddanaati Satyanarayana & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.400 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed to revise the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Jaggayyapet, dated 27.09.2007 dismissing I.A.No.104 of 2006 in O.S.No.145 of 2001 filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to decide the suit in O.S.No.145 of 2001 along with O.S.No.436 of 2004 by conducting joint trial. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.145 of 2001 was filed for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale, dated 8.8.1995 alleging that out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-, the defendants-respondents 1 to 3 received Rs.14,800/- as advance. Whereas, O.S.No.436 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2002 as not binding on him stating that the fourth respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2002 against the respondents 1 to 3 and obtained ex parte decree and took possession of the property in E.P.No.75 of 2002 filed for registration and delivery of the petition schedule property. Though the property in both the suits is one and the same and the parties are common, yet the issues in both the suits are not identical. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for specific performance pursuant to the agreement of sale, dated 8.8.1995 is the subject-matter of issue in O.S.No.145 of 2001. Whereas, the issues in O.S.No.436 of 2004 are whether the decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2002 is binding on the petitioner and that whether the said decree is a collusive decree or not. Therefore, the evidence in both the suits is not identical and it is for the fourth respondent to establish that there is no collusion in the suit filed by him and the decree obtained by him for specific performance and execution of it is not in collusion. Since the issues in both the suits are different, it is unnecessary to club both the suits and to have a joint trial. The impugned order so passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to take up both the suits simultaneously and decide the same independently. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 21, 2010 Tsr.