( 1 ) TR. C. M. P. No. 322 of 2002 is filed by the petitioner, M/s. Satyasri Fertilizers, represented by its Proprietor Potturi Koteswara Rao, against the respondent, M/s. E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd. , Chennai, represented by its Power of Attorney B. B. Muthu, praying for transfer of O. S. No. 12 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada to be tried along with O. S. No. 94 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur and to pass such other orders.

( 2 ) TR. C. M. P. No. 482 of 2002 is filed by M/s. E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd. , Chennai, represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder as against M/s. Satyasri Fertilizers represented by its Proprietor Potturi Koteswara Rao, praying for transfer of O. S. No. 94 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur to the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to be tried along with O. S. No. 12 of 2002 and to pass such other orders.

( 3 ) IT is stated in Tr. C. M. P. No. 322 of 2002 that the respondent had filed a suit O. S. No. 12 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada seeking a decree for a claim of Rs. 21,27,715-00 along with interest at the rate of 18% P. A. It is also stated that the petitioner is a dealer agent for the plaintiff-company at Guntur for the past more than three decades and in the year 1997 the petitioner expressed his inability to continue the business on behalf of M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. Then the concerned officers of EID Parry (India) Ltd. persuaded him to continue the business. On the representation and assurance on behalf of the company that they would reimburse the loss that he may incur as their dealer if the company itself cannot collect from its purchasers. The petitioner incurred huge losses to the tune of Rs. 18,08,655-65 and hence the petitioner filed the suit in O. S. No. 94 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur and the same is pending before the said Court. It is also stated that during the course of business transactions the petitioner issued several blank cheques at the instance of M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. on the representation that it is the usual practice in the fertilizer business to enable the company to realize the money due in respect of the supplies of the stocks that were to be delivered in future course and the blank cheques will be filled in with the amounts outstanding after the lapse of the credit period and on that the above blank cheques were issued with a clear intention that the cheques will not be filled and presented for payment without delivering the stocks or the amounts become actually due. It is further stated that M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. , the plaintiff in O. S. No. 12 of 2002 had filed the above speculative and frivolous suit only to harass him and for wrongful gain without any liability on his part and the petitioner is having a very good defence in the suit and the balance of convenience lies in his favour. It is further stated that the petitioner is a diabetic patient, aged about 65 years and his toe of left leg (leg fingers) was amputated at M. V. Hospital, Chennai and he was advised not to move out of Guntur apart from strict diet. In view of the medical advice, the petitioner is not in a position to defend the case at Vajayawada. It is also stated that since the cause of action arose at Guntur, the petitioner filed O. S. No. 94 of 2002 against M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. , and unless O. S. No. 12 of 2002 is transferred from Vijayawada to Guntur, the petitioner would suffer heavy loss.

( 4 ) IT is brought to my notice that the above Tr. C. M. P. No. 322 of 2002 was allowed ex parte on 30-10-2002 but, however, the said ex parte order dated 30-10-2002 was subsequently set aside as per order dated 21-1-2003 passed in C. M. P. No. 23610 of 2002 on the ground that the name of the counsel representing the opposite party was not printed in the cause list. Th