C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on both sides.

( 2 ) THESE three Transfer C. M. Ps. can be disposed off by a common order since a common question arises for decision. The petitioner herein is the sole defendant in O. S. Nos. 17,18 and 19 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior civil Judge, Tenali. The said suits are filed by different plaintiffs for recovery of money on the foot of promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the defendant in their favour. The defence in all the suits is that the suit promissory notes are not true and they are not supported by consideration and they have been brought into existence by one Ch. Vivekananda on account of certain disputes between him and the defendant and that the said vivekananda engineered and got filed all the suits through his own nominees. It is also stated that six more similar suits were got filed by the said vivekananda through his nominees in different Courts at Vijayawada in krishna District and all those six suits were already transferred to the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada on applications for transfer filed by the petitioner before the District Judge, Krishna. By the present transfer petitions, the petitioner seeks the transfer of these three suits also to the same court so that there may not be multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. In support of the petitions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High court reported in Dist. Collector vs. K. V. K. Thampuran.

( 3 ) THE respondents-plaintiffs opposed the transfer of these suits contending that as the plaintiffs are different and the transactions are different and the causes of action are different, the suits cannot be transferred as sought for by the petitioner merely because the defence is one and the same in all the suits. It is also contended that mere convenience of the defendant of his witnesses cannot be a valid ground for transfer as such transfer causes undue hardship and inconvenience to the plaintiffs and their witnesses. In support of the said contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Mysore High Court reported in Lingappa vs. State of Mysore and a decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Swami Swaroopanand vs. Ramji,

( 4 ) NORMALLY the plaintiff has the right to choose the place of suing and the mere convenience of the defendant or his witnesses cannot be a valid ground for the transfer of the suit, but where the defence in all the suits is practically one and the same and common questions of fact and law arise for decision, to secure the ends of justice and toprevent multiplicity of proceedings and also the possibility of conflicting judgments, Courts have generally held that it is better to have all such suits tried at one place only by the same Court. Ultimately the question depends on the interests of justice and not the convenience of one party or the other. The learned single Judge of the Kerala high Court has followed the view taken by the Madras High Court in the decision reported in Rajulu vs. Govindan Nair and the Bombay High Court in the decision reported in Vaman Vasudeo vs. Raghunath Ganesh.

( 5 ) HAVING regard to the fact that six similar suits are already pending in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, I am of the view that it is a fit case for ordering the transfer of O. S. Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1995 which are pending on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil judge, Tenali, also to the former Court as such a course besides being convenient for the parties and their witnesses will also be conducive for a voiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. In this view of the matter, the Transfer C. M. Ps. are ordered as prayed for. As the suits are of the year 1995 and they are also ripe for tr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document