Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

This petition under section 24 of C.P.C is filed to withdraw O.S. No. 71 of 2014 pending on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor and transfer the same to IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor and club with pending A.S. No. 69 of 2013, on the ground that in O.S. No. 71 of 2014, this petitioner is arrayed as sole defendant and the relief claimed in the said suit is declaration of title and consequential injunction.

2. Whereas, the second respondent herein filed O.S. No. 51 of 2004 for partition of plaint schedule property against the petitioner herein, which ended in dismissal. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 51 of 2004, the second respondent herein preferred A.S. No. 69 of 2013 pending on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor for adjudication. Further, during pendency of the appeal, the first respondent herein died and the petitioner herein allegedly filed I.A. No. 90 of 2014 in A.S. No. 69 of 2013 under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C to implead the petitioner who is the proposed legal representative of the second respondent herein. The said I.A. No. 90 of 2014 was dismissed by the Court below on 17.02.2017. However, C.R.P. No. 2842 of 2017 was preferred against the order in I.A. No. 90 of 2017 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court on 19.09.2017, directing the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor to conduct an enquiry trial in the said appeal with regard to validity or otherwise of the registered Will dated 15.07.2002 and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law.

3. Since, the property involved in both the suits is one and the same, though the petitioner is not a party to the appeal, as on today, to avoid conflicting judgments, the petitioner sought for withdrawal of O.S. No. 71 of 2014 pending on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor and transfer the same to IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor and club with pending A.S. No. 69 of 2013, for adjudication.

4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.S. Bhatt reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit, whereas, the learned counsel for the second respondent Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma opposed the petition on the ground that, until a decision is given on the interlocutory application, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2842 of 2017, both the matters cannot be disposed of simultaneously by one Court. Further, the question of conflicting decisions would not arise even if both the cases were disposed of by two independent Courts separately and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. It is an undisputed fact that, O.S. No. 71 of 2014 and A.S. No. 69 of 2013 are pending on the file of two different Courts i.e. VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, respectively. But, the property involved in both the suits is one and the same.

6. In A.S. No. 69 of 2013 which is filed for partition, the petitioner is not yet impleaded as party. However, the direction issued by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2842 of 2017 is not yet complied with by the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor and the appeal suit is still pending for adjudication about the validity of the Will, as directed in the revision petition.

7. But, in O.S. No. 71 of 2014 which is filed for declaration of title and consequential injunction, this petitioner set up the Registered Will, claiming property by way of testamentary dispossession and therefore, adjudication, if any, as directed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2842 of 2017 will have its own impact on the judgment in O.S. No. 71 of 2014. If, for any reason, in the appeal A.S. No. 69 of 2013, the validity of the Will is decided and the defence set up in the suit O.S. No. 71 of 2014 is decided on the same Will, the defendant would loose is opportunity to adduce substantive evidence to prove the said will and if, for any reason, two suits are tried by two different Courts, there is every likelih