M. NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE orders, according to Law, arise out of a Civil Revision Petition, filed by the sole revision petitioner, against the sole respondent, under Article 227 of the constitution of India, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) ORDERS and Decree, both, dated 22-4-2003, of the Court of the Junior Civil judge, Vayalpad, made in I. A. No. 354/2003, in O. S. No. 234/2002, filed before it, by the sole revision petitioner (sole defendant), against the sole respondent herein (sole plaintiff), under Section 151, CPC adjudicating thereupon, as under:- (A) Refused to order joint trial of O. S. No. 234/2002 and 233/2002, as claimed therein; and (B) Consequently, dismissed that I. A. , in toto, with costs to the respondent therein. ( 3 ) BOTH the suits are based on two different promissory notes of even date for different amounts. The parties are one and the same, in both the suits. Hence, it is very much desirable, that, both the suits should be commonly tried and adjudged by common judgment. Inter alia, the same will save the precious time of the Trial Court, as well as, the time of the parties, and their counsel, etc. ( 4 ) AFTER perusing the operative part of the impugned Orders, contained in lengthy para 5 thereof, vis-a-vis, the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, visa-vis, the legal position postulated in Patan noorun Bi v. Pandla Chinna Pullaiah delivered, under Section 151, C. P. C. , and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, I am fully satisfied, that, the impugned Orders are invalid, and, are unsustainable at Law, and, hence, are liable to be set aside, in toto, in the interests of justice. Hence, no further probing there-into, in my opinion, as required. ( 5 ) MANGALI Satukuri Anjaiah v. Nethi rajaiah and another, delivered, under section 151, C. P. C. , and sought to be relied upon by the learned Counsel for both the parties, in my opinion, has no application to the specific facts, circumstances and the context covered by the case, on hand, even though, the distinction appear to be subtle, but, at the same time, of vast significance and consequence. ( 6 ) IN the foregoing facts and circumstances, no further discussion, or, probing, in this Revision Case, is warranted, or, required. ( 7 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Civil Revision Petition, as under: 1. Set aside, in toto, the Orders and the Decree, set forth in para 2, supra; consequently, adjudicate upon the said I. A. No. 354/2003, in O. S. No. 234/2002, of the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad, as under: "allow the same, in toto,. as claimed therein, but, without costs", and direct the parties to the C. R. P. , to bear their respective costs, incurred herein