ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 22.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.959 of 2024 in O.S.No.274 of 2017 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

2. The petitioners are defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.274 of 2017.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the respondent filed the suit vide O.S.No.274 of 2017 for eviction of respondents from the petition schedule house and handing over its vacant possession and for arrears of rent. In the said suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.959 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC praying the court to club the said suit with O.S.No.108 of 2019, order common trial and commence evidence in O.S.No.108 of 2019, since a comprehensive suit. The respondent resisted the claim sought in the petition by filing counter contending that nature of both the suits is different and the agreement of sale based on which O.S.No.108 of 2019 was filed is a rank forgery and the petition is filed only to drag on the matter and clubbing of both the suits would cause prejudice to respondent and result in miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Judge upon considering the material and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition. The said dismissal order has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision Petition would contend that both the suits are in relation to the same subject property and clubbing of the suits and recording common evidence would not only avoid overlapping of evidence but would aid in effective adjudication of the dispute besides avoiding conflicting judgments. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge instead of deciding the petition on merits attaching much significance to a typographical error occurred in the petition in mentioning year of the suit to be clubbed, erroneously dismissed the petition. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Smt. Ghousia Sulthana vs. P.Yuganddhar and others, Orders dated 11.11.2024 passed in CRP No.2616 of 2024

6. Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed in trial Court, would contend that the petitioners in order to continue in possession of the property without paying rent, having been frustrated of filing ejectment suit by the landlord, brought into existence the agreement of sale by committing forgery, filed the suit for specific performance and since causes of action and the reliefs sought in both the suits are distinct and different, the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petition. He would further contend that clubbing of the suits would cause prejudice to the respondent and that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings endlessly and the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petition and the well considered order does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on  Kamlesh Baghel vs. Shrikrishna Yadav, 2014 SCC OnLine MP 6836 and Hira Singh vs. Manmeet Kaur, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5185.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The suit in O.S.No.274 of 2017 was filed by respondent against the petitioners for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit vide O.S.No.108 of 2019 for specific performance of agreeme