ORDER : Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 12.09.2022 in I.A.No.268 of 2022 in O.S.No.712 of 2015 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Suit O.S.No.712 of 2015 was filed by plaintiff against the respondent herein and another person for specific performance of contract directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed pursuant to agreement dated 06.12.2014 or alternatively for refund of an amount of Rs.22,10,000/- with interest @24% per annum. 3. 2. Suit O.S.No.712 of 2015 was filed by plaintiff against the respondent herein and another person for specific performance of contract directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed pursuant to agreement dated 06.12.2014 or alternatively for refund of an amount of Rs.22,10,000/- with interest @24% per annum. 3. In the plaint, it was contended, inter-alia, that 1st defendant is the absolute owner of site admeasuring 435.6 square yards in S.No.132 of Chinagadili village; that 2nd defendant, builder entered into agreement dated 05.12.2011 with 1st defendant to construct multi-storeyed building with four floors; that suit schedule flat is one among said multi-storeyed building flats; that 2nd defendant executed an unregistered agreement of sale dated 04.01.2012 in favour of plaintiff styling himself as vendor to alienate the plaint schedule flat to the plaintiff for Rs.28,00,000/-; that Xerox copy of development agreement dated 05.12.2011 was also handed over to plaintiff; that under the agreement of sale dated 04.01.2012, 2nd defendant agreed to sell suit schedule flat of 1550 square feet in the ground floor to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.28,00,000/- and received Rs.5,00,000/- as detailed in the agreement as advance; that approval from the GVMC is obtained by defendants for making construction of multi-storeyed building; that some disputes arose between the defendants and there was delay in construction of building; that 1st defendant executed another document naming it as agreement of sale dated 06.12.2014 for the suit schedule property and received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and agreed to sell the suit schedule flat for Rs.18,00,000/-; that both the defendants together completed the construction of suit schedule flat except some minor works like electrical wiring, painting etc.; that both the defendants apart from the amount stated supra, received Rs.1,40,000/- under cheque No.283627 in the name of 2nd defendant’s brother, Rs.2,10,000/- in the name of Surya Enterprises with an undertaking with plaintiff and her father to deduct the said amount payable by plaintiff to defendants and they also received different amounts and in total, defendants received an amount of Rs.22,10,000/- from the plaintiff; that plaintiff demanded both the defendants to received balance of Rs.5,90,000/- and executed a registered sale deed, defendants postponed the same; that plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendants on 30.10.2015 and 04.11.2015 and hence, filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra. 4. 4. 1st Defendant in O.S.No.712 of 2015, filed suit O.S.No.172 of 2016 against the plaintiff in O.S.No.712 of 2015 and her husband for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 5. In the plaint in O.S.No.172 of 2016, it was contended interalia that plaintiff is the absolute owner of 462 square yards of site and it is ancestral property; that plaintiff got constructed two houses bearing Door Nos.10-310 and 10311; that in the year 2012, he along with his family members intended to develop the said old house into multi-storeyed building and dismantled the old house; that plaintiff obtained permission from GVMC for construction of multi-storeyed building of Stilt + 4 floors with 8 dwelling units under the approved plan bearing No.BA No.10190/2012/ACP-I dated 22.02.2012; that as per the approved plan, they constructed the entire building and later they made a family settlement under registered partition deed dated 07.03.2014; that dwelling unit No.102 fell to the plaintiff’s share and GVMC assessed the same to tax and plaintiff has been paying taxes; that plaintiff also obtained electricity service connection and paying bills from 15.07.2015; that defendants who are wife and husband, approached the plaintiff and requested to sell the flat for paltry amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and as it is not acceptable to plaintiff, he refused the said offer; that plaintiff and family members engaged one G. Srinivasa Rao and entrusted him some construction work on piece rate basis; that 1st defendant issued two legal notices dated 30.10.2015 and 04.11.2015 and both notices were served on 07.11.2016; that on 13.11.2015 defendants came along with 20 persons holding sticks and trespassed into the flat and occupied the same; that plaintiff made a complaint to police over 100, but there is no action from the police; that 2nd defendant identified himself as Prohibition & Excise Inspector and it is learnt he is working in Vigilance; that plaintiff made a written complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 19.11.2015 and hence, suit was filed for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 6. The schedule property in both the suits is one and the same. However, as stated supra, reliefs sought for in both the suits are different. 7. 6. The schedule property in both the suits is one and the same. However, as stated supra, reliefs sought for in both the suits are different. 7. Basing the pleadings in O.S.No.712 of 2015, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether there is development agreement 1st defendant as landlord and 2nd defendant as builder for construction of an apartment? (2) Whether the 2nd defendant executed agreement of sale dated 04.01.2012 in favour of plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property in pursuance of development agreement dated 15.12.2014? (3) Whether both defendants received total amount of Rs.22,10,000/- from the plaintiff on various dates? (4) Whether the 1st defendant executed agreement of sale dated 06.12.2014 in favour of the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property in pursuance of the development agreement dated 15.12.2011? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 6.12.2014 against the defendants 1 and 2? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of refund of advance amount with interest? (7) To what relief? 8. Basing the pleadings in O.S.No.172 of 2016, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the defendants illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property for defendants under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act? (3) To what relief? 9. Suit O.S.No.712 of 2015 is pending on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Suit O.S.No.172 of 2016 is pending on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 10. Plaintiff in O.S.No.712 of 2015 filed T.O.P.No.968 of 2016 under Section 24 of CPC, showing the 1st defendant alone as respondent and sought for transfer of said suit to the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to try along with O.S.No.172 of 2016. 11. By order dated 16.11.2016, learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam allowed said TOP and transferred O.S.No.712 of 2015 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to try along with O.S.No.172 of 2016. It is pertinent to mention here that 2nd defendant in the suit O.S.No. 712 of 215 was not shown as party respondent to the said transfer petition. However, the said transfer petition was ordered. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that 2nd defendant in the suit O.S.No. 712 of 215 was not shown as party respondent to the said transfer petition. However, the said transfer petition was ordered. 12. After six years of transfer of said suit, plaintiff in O.S.No.712 of 2015 filed I.A.No.268 of 2022 to record common evidence in O.S.Nos.712 of 2015 and 172 of 2016 as parties on both the suit are one and same and the schedule property is one and the same. In the petition filed along with affidavit, 2nd defendant in suit O.S.No. 712 of 2015 was not shown as party. The said application was opposed by 1st defendant in O.S.No.712 of 2015. 13. By order dated 12.09.2022, the Court below dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision is filed. 14. Heard Sri B.Apparao, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent. 15. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would contend that parties in both the suits are one and the same and schedule property in both the suits is one and the same. He would submit that since O.S.No.712 of 2015 is transferred to IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to try along with O.S.No.172 of 2016, if the evidence is recorded in O.S.No.712 of 2015, the Court can avoid conflicting of decisions. 16. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that causes of action and issues in both the suits are different. The nature of relief sought for in both the suits is also different. Counsel would submit that enquiry in O.S.No.172 of 2016 is summary in nature. Trial in O.S.No.172 of 2016 is commenced and in fact, the plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit and it is coming for marking of documents and he thus, supported the order of the Court below. 17. In view of the pleadings and issued involved in the suits, the point that would arise for consideration is : (1) Whether recording of evidence in O.S.No.172 of 2016 is necessary? (2) Whether Court below committed any illegality in passing the order impugned in the revision petition? 18. Suit O.S.No.172 of 2016 was filed by plaintiff Gullipalli Venkata Sridevi for specific performance of agreement of sale against defendants 1 and 2. Suit O.S.No.172 of 2016 was filed by 1st defendant in O.S.No.712 of 2015, for recovery of possession under Sec 6 of Specific Relief Act. 18. Suit O.S.No.172 of 2016 was filed by plaintiff Gullipalli Venkata Sridevi for specific performance of agreement of sale against defendants 1 and 2. Suit O.S.No.172 of 2016 was filed by 1st defendant in O.S.No.712 of 2015, for recovery of possession under Sec 6 of Specific Relief Act. Though the property involved in both the suits is one and same, however, relief sought for in both the suits are different. The nature of enquiry is also different. Suit O.S.No.172 of 2016 is filed seeking recovery of possession under Sec 6 of Specific Relief Act, the nature of enquiry in the suit is summary in nature and the suit is to be decided as expeditiously as possible. While dealing the case of that nature, the Court would consider possession and dispossession only. 19. Merely because, the suit O.S.No.712 of 2015 was transferred to VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, it cannot be construed that both the suits should be clubbed, and evidence be recorded in one suit. No doubt, in a case where the property is common and subject matter is similar, to avoid conflicting decisions, consolidation of two or more suits can be ordered. However, when consolidation of suit is ordered, the court should consider nature of suits and the issues involved in the suits. Merely because the parties are one and the same and property is one the same, when suits are pending on different courts, normally, consolidation of suit does not arise. 20. As stated supra, O.S.No.712 of 2015 is filed seeking specific performance against two defendants. 1st Defendant in O.S.No.712 of 2015 filed O.S.No.172 of 2016 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the plaintiff therein and her husband. 2nd Defendant in O.S.No.712 of 2015 is not a party to the suit O.S.No.172 of 2016. Clubbing of suits and recording of common evidence is to be done depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. As noted supra, the issues involved in both the suits are different and the cause of action is also different. Hence, recording of evidence on both the suits does not arise. Apart from the same, no application is made to club both the suits except filing the present I.A. to record evidence in one suit. As noted supra, the issues involved in both the suits are different and the cause of action is also different. Hence, recording of evidence on both the suits does not arise. Apart from the same, no application is made to club both the suits except filing the present I.A. to record evidence in one suit. As can be seen from the counter, affidavit in chief is filed in O.S.No.172 of 2016 and that suit filed under Sec 6 of Specific Relief Act, should be disposed within 6 months. 21. In view of discussion made supra, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.