ORDER :

1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant in Original Suit No.29 of 2018, on the file of learned XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, with a prayer to transfer the said case to the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur to be tried along with Original Suit No.371 of 2018, in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, which is necessary to be extracted here, insofar as disposal of this petition is concerned is that the respondent filed O.S.No.29 of 2018, on the file of learned XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, against the present petitioner for recovery of amount on the strength of three promissory notes. The respondent did not disclose the true facts in the said suit. In fact, the petitioner filed O.S.No.371 of 2018, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, against the plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 2018. In O.S.No.29 of 2018 the respondent alleged that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- on 28.11.2014, Rs.4,28,55,000/- on 28.11.2014 and further a sum of Rs.2,89,35,000/- on 04.12.2014 and that later, she repaid Rs.90,00,000/-, Rs.35,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- towards part discharge of the said debt. With the same averments, respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act i.e., C.C.No.329 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta. The present petitioner filed O.S.No.371 of 2018 before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur with a prayer to cancel two sale deeds. These two sale deeds are matching and corresponding to the borrowings, dated 28.11.2014 and 04.12.2014. The subject matter in the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.371 of 2018 and in O.S.No.29 of 2018 filed by the respondent are one and same. Petitioner filed O.S.No.371 of 2018 which is a comprehensive in nature. In fact, the plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 2018 obtained two sale deeds from the petitioner on the date of execution of the promissory notes without paying sale consideration and by playing fraud and misrepresentation by colluding with the husband of the petitioner. Petitioner has to let in evidence in both the suits to explain how the respondent played fraud on her. The suit filed by the petitioner is praying for a declaratory decree. If O.S.No.29 of 2018 is allowed to be tried independently, true facts will not come into light and there is every possibility that in both the trials there is ever likelihood of getting conflicting judgments. The nature of the evidence to be let in and the witnesses that are to be examined in both the suits are one and same. In fact, the present petitioner filed a detailed written statement in O.S.No.29 of 2018 narrating about the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.371 of 2018 filed by the petitioner to cancel the sale deeds. The trial Court is insisting the petitioner to proceed with the trial upon the pressure applied by the respondent. The respondent is very eager to get the money suit decreed to take upper hand and he is avoiding to the face trial in O.S.No.371 of 2018. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and contending in substance that in the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.371 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, he is shown as third defendant. O.S.No.29 of 2018 is pending before the XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopeta and O.S.No.371 of 2018 is pending before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur. Both the Courts are the subordinate to the District Court as per Section 3(a) of 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short). Thus, the petition for transfer of O.S.No.29 of 2018 before this Court is not maintainable, as this type of petition has to be filed before the District Court at Guntur. He filed O.S.No.29 of 2018 for recovery of huge amount under the three promissory notes executed by the p