ORDER : 1. The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order passed by the Court below on I.A.No.78 filed under Section 151 of CPC, wherein the request made by the plaintiff to club the present suit pending in O.S.No.156/2014 to be clubbed with O.S.No.362/2019. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed present suit in O.S.No.156/2014 seeking relief of specific performance against respondent/defendant on the basis of agreement of sale dated 01.05.2012. The present petitioner has also filed a similar suit bearing O.S.No.130/2014 on the basis of agreement of sale dated 05.11.2010 in respect of some other properties, which was later renumbered as O.S.No.362/2019. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.78 to club both the suits on the premises that the parties in both the suits are one and the same. Learned Judge has rejected the application by holding that both these suits are filed on different suit agreements in respect of different properties and there by the cause of action in both the suits are different and distinct. Hence the question of clubbing both the suits would not arise in the present case on hand. On these set of reasons, the learned Judge has rejected the applications. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that since the parties to both the suits are one and the same, the learned judge ought to have clubbed both the suits. The clubbing of suits would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the controversy between the parties and on these grounds the learned counsel submits that the impugned order warrant interference by this Court. She would further submit to this Court that, if both the suits are clubbed, the parties can lead common evidence. Learned counsel would further submit to this Court that, O.S.No.362/2019 which was pending before the some other Court was sought to be transfer only with an intend to get the said suit clubbed with the present suit. On these set of ground, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that the order under challenge suffers from serious material irregularities and hence warrants interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the pleadings and also the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.78. On these set of ground, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that the order under challenge suffers from serious material irregularities and hence warrants interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the pleadings and also the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.78. The present petitioner has filed two suits based on separate agreements executed on different dates pertaining to different properties. That would clearly indicate that the suits are filed on different cause of action in respect of different properties. If the subject matter of both the suits are different, then I am of the view that, the clubbing of suits as prayed by the present petitioner/plaintiff needs to be declined. The intention beyond clubbing the suits is to avoid duplication and also to avoid conflicting judgments when same subject matter is involved in both the suits. Underlying principles and object of clubbing the suits is to avoid conflicting judgments. In the present case on hand both the suits are based on independent agreement for sale pertaining to separate properties. Therefore, I am of the view that clubbing would lead to complications and the Court may be hampered in referring to the documents and evidence while adjudicating independent claims in both the suits. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.78 does not suffer from any infirmities. For the reasons stated supra I pass the following order : The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.