The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to transfer suits to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure the interest of justice.

ORDER :

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kakinada under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking transfer of OS.No.320 of 2021 from II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Kakinada to IV Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences at Visakhapatnam to try along with OS No.99 of 2022.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he filed OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, seeking relief of permanent injunction, against the respondents herein, wherein all the respondents appeared before the trial Court, and filed their written statement, and said case is coming up for framing of issues. The petitioner submits that after receiving summons in OS No.320 of 2021, the 2nd respondent filed suit for partition, which is OS No.99 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences at Visakhapatnam, against himself and respondents 1 and 3 herein. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he filed suit in OS No.320 of 2021, basing on WILL, dated 09.11.2019 executed by his father in his favour, wherein the respondents have filed written statement, denying the execution of the WILL, whereas the 2nd respondent filed suit OS No.99 of 2022, seeking partition of plaint schedule properties, which includes immovable property, shown in OS No.320 of 2021 as item No.5 of schedule shown in OS No.99 of 2022. The main contention of the petitioner is that the issues in both the suits are common, as dispute is in respect of un-registered WILL, dated 09.11.2019, executed by his father in his favour, if the trial of the suits in different Courts is conducted, may lead to conflicting decisions. He prays to allow the petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for respondents 1 and 3. None appeared for respondents 2 and 4, though served with notice. Notice also sent to 5th respondent to the correct address, which returned as ‘door locked’. This Court already treated that it is ‘deemed service’.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contention of both the parties in both suits is one and the same, and genuineness of the WILL disputed by the respondents has to be decided in both suits, due to that transfer of OS No.320 of 2021 from II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada to try along with OS No.99 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions if any. He prays to allow the petition.

5. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is:-

"Whether there are any grounds to transfer OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada of East Godavari District to IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam to try along with OS No.99 of 2022?"

6. POINT:

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Pullettikurthi Varaha Chandra Bose, (2004) 5 ALT 209, held that:

“Necessity for transfer of suits from one Court to another, would arise if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of parties. When such situation does not exist, the relief claimed for transfer of the suit, cannot be granted”.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659, held as follows:

“Section 24 CPC confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings “at any stage” either on an application by any party or suo motu. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercises with due care, caution and circumspection