ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. Aggrieved by the docket order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nalgonda in SR.No.453 of 2023 in Unregistered O.S.No.NIL of 2023, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the plaint presented by the revision petitioner herein. 3. Heard Sri G.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the material available on record. 4. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant basing on two promissory notes, i.e, one promissory note dated 24.08.2020 executed by deceased father of defendant for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and another promissory note dated 01.08.2021 executed by defendant for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The office of the trial Court returned the bundle raising two objections, firstly, the LRs of the deceased borrower are not made party to the suit and secondly, the suit is basing on two promissory notes executed by different persons in respect of different transactions, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 5. The plaintiff has re-submitted the bundle with clarification that as per Section 53 of CPC and Order II Rule 3 CPC and in the light of the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bandaru Srinivasa Rao Vs. Sreyobhilashi Chit Funds, Wyra, Khammam District and  others , [ 2008(1) ALD 392 ] and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1952 SC 170 , the suit is maintainable. 6. The trial Court has examined the clarification given by the plaintiff and by the impugned order returned the plaint. The trial Court observed that as per Section 53 CPC, if the property of a deceased person comes to the hands of his son or other descendant, the latter would be made liable to pay the debt of deceased, deeming it as the property of the deceased. In the present case, only one of the sons of the deceased borrower was made party stating that he has inherited the property of his father. However, no material is placed on record to show that partition has taken place among the legal heirs and that the property has come to defendant alone. 7. In the present case, only one of the sons of the deceased borrower was made party stating that he has inherited the property of his father. However, no material is placed on record to show that partition has taken place among the legal heirs and that the property has come to defendant alone. 7. Insofar as two promissory notes is concerned, the trial Court held that plaintiff may unite several cause of actions pertaining to the same defendant, but, in the case on hand, there are two promissory notes, one executed by defendant and another by deceased father of the defendant at different times and in respect of different transactions, as such, Order II Rule 3 CPC is not applicable and accordingly, rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court was not justified in returning the plaint since the defendant is in possession of the property of his deceased father, therefore, the LRs of the deceased borrower are not necessary parties to the suit as per Section 53 CPC. He further contended that two promissory notes are executed by different persons in favour of one person i.e., the plaintiff and hence, trial Court erred in observing that Order II Rule 3 CPC is not applicable to the present suit and prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order. 9. For better appreciation, it apposite to extract Section 53 CPC as well as Order II Rule 3 CPC as hereunder:- “ Section 53 CPC- Liability of ancestral property For the purposes of section 50 and section 52, property in the hands of a son or other descendant which is liable under Hindu law for the payment of the debt of a deceased ancestor, in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to be property of the deceased which has come to the hands of the son or other descendant as his legal representative. Order II Rule 3 CPC reads as hereunder:- Joinder of causes of action .—(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. 10. A reading of Order II Rule 3 CPC makes it clear that two or more cause of actions relating to same defendant can be combined together and a single suit can be filed. However, in the present case, one promissory note was executed by the defendant and another promissory note was executed by deceased father of the defendant. Therefore, it constitutes two different causes of actions by two different persons and as such, as rightly observed by the trial Court, Order II Rule 3 CPC is not applicable to the present case. 11. Further, it is pertinent to note that in the plaint, the plaintiff himself averred that the deceased borrower died leaving behind him, the defendant, his mother, his brothers and his sisters as his legal heirs. Learned counsel for the plaintiff admitted that no partition has taken place among the legal heirs of the deceased borrower and in such an event, the property of the deceased borrower in the hands of the defendant cannot be construed as property falling within the purview of Section 53 CPC. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. As a result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. 14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.