IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of transferring cases to the same court when parties and issues are similar to prevent conflicting decisions.

ORDER :

1. I have heard both sides.

2. These petitions are filed by the petitioners against the respondents under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”) with common grounds seeking transfer of cases in respect of same property, can be disposed of by Common Order.

3. The Tr. CMP No. 99 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in OS No. 32 of 2023 on the file of II Additional District Judge’s Court, Amalapuram of East Godavari District, seeking transfer of OS No. 3 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District to II Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Amalapuram of East Godavari District to try along with OS No. 32 of 2023.

The Tr. CMP No. 172 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners, who are plaintiffs in OS No. 3 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District, seeking transfer of OS No. 32 of 2023 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Amalapuram of East Godavari District to IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District to try along with OS No. 3 of 2024.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner in Tr. CMP No. 99 of 2024 that at the first instance, she filed suit for partition and separate possession of her share in plaint schedule properties, and thereafter the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are plaintiffs in OS No. 3 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of same properties. The petitioner submits that some of the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of District Court, Amalapuram, and few of properties are situated within the jurisdiction of District Court, Tanuku. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also residents of Ravulapalem village, within the jurisdiction of Amalapuram Court, who intentionally filed OS No. 3 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District to harass her, though they are residents of Ravulapalem village and the respondent Nos.7 to 20 are tenants in the suit schedule properties. The petitioner submits that the issues and properties involved in both the suits are similar, due to that she is seeking transfer of OS No. 3 of 2024 from IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District to II Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Amalapuram of East Godavari District to try along with OS No. 32 of 2023.

5. The contention of the petitioners in Tr. CMP No. 172 of 2024 is that though the 1st petitioner is residing at Ravulapalem village along with her minor child, she has no male support to attend the Court at Amalapuram, which is at a distance of 35 to 40 kms from Ravulapalem, whereas Tanuku town is at a distance of 25 kms from Ravulapalem, which is convenient to both sides to attend the Court. The petitioners submit that Tanuku town is situated on National Highway No. 16, due to that it is convenient to both parties to attend the Court to prosecute their suits. They pray to transfer OS No. 32 of 2023 to IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in Tr. CMP No. 99 of 2024 would submit that though the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are residents of Ravulapalem within the jurisdiction of District Court, Amalapuram have chosen to file suit before IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District only to harass the petitioner. He would further submit that when most of the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of District Court, Amalapuram both suits have to be tried by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions. He prays to allow the petition filed by the petitioner, and dismiss the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in Tr. CMP No. 172 of 2024 would submit that