The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 03.7.2008 made in I.A.No.692 of 2007 in O.S.No.303 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. The said application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience) to club the suits in O.S.No.125 of 1998 and O.S.No.303 of 2006 by treating the evidence let in O.S.No.125 of 1998 as evidence in O.S.No.303 of 2006. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

3. Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel representing revision petitioner would maintain that the subject matter in O.S.No.125 of 1998 and O.S.No.303 of 2006 being one and the same and the basis for claim of the subject matter by the respondent also being based on the alleged Will dated 18.9.1998, which was revoked by the executor of the said Will by her last Will dated 10.7.2000, the trial court totally erred in making such an order. The learned counsel also would maintain that the trial court ought to have seen that O.S.No.125 of 1998 was originally filed by late Kollu Nagamma for partition of her husband's share in joint family properties and after the death of said Kollu Nagamma the respondent got impleaded as second plaintiff in O.S.No.125 of 1998 basing on the alleged Will dated 18.9.1998 which was revoked by Kollu Nagamma through her last Will dated 10.7.2000 executed in favour of petitioner. The issue relates to both partition and entitlement to the share of deceased Kollu Nagamma. The counsel also would maintain that if the trial court had considered this aspect in its entirety, the trial court would have allowed I.A.No.692 of 2007. The counsel also further would maintain that the trial court totally erred in observing that already trial is being completed to the maximum extent in O.S.No.125 of 1998 and the evidence is yet to be commenced in O.S.No.303 of 2006 and the parties are also different, as such both the suits cannot be clubbed together and they have to be tried independently and this view of the trial court cannot be said to be in consonance with what had been observed in Tr.O.P.No.44 of 2007. Thus, the learned counsel would maintain that the order under challenge in the present civil revision petition cannot be sustained. The counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

4. Per contra, Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel representing respondent would maintain that except the fact that R. Eswar Kumar is common party, the subject matter in these suits being different and the issues to be decided also being different and also in the light of the fact that one suit is at the stage of part heard and also at the fag-end, at present clubbing the suits may not be just and proper, since there may be delay in disposal of the other suit in which the evidence already had been recorded. The learned counsel also placed before this court the pleadings of the parties both in O.S.No.125 of 1998 and also O.S.No.303 of 2006 aforesaid and also pointed out to the respective schedules and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, especially, inasmuch as the learned Judge observed that the judgments can be pronounced at a time both need not be clubbed, the impugned order cannot be found fault. The learned counsel also would maintain that it is no doubt true that Tr.O.P.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the District judge, Chittoor, had been allowed and O.S.No.303 of 2006 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, was ordered to be transferred to the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, to be tried along with O.s.No.125 of 1998 in accordance with law. Ordering joint trial or clubbing the suits or recording common evidence, this is something different