1. The main prayer in this Transfer Petition (Civil) filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows :

“Transfer O.P.(MV) No.253/2011 pending before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram and try the same by a joint trial with O.P.(MV) No.891/2011, pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.”

2. Notice has been duly served on respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Registry has reported that notice to 3rd respondent has been returned with endorsement ‘not known’. Now it has been appraised by the M.A.C.T., Attingal to the Registry of this Court that the 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.891/2011 has been arrayed as the 1st respondent in Annexure 3 O.P. (M.V.)No.253/2011 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Attingal and has been duly served in that O.P.(M.V.), but, since there was no representation for the 3rd respondent herein/1st respondent therein, he has already been set ex parte by that Tribunal, hence notice to that party is dispensed with.

3. Heard Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Ziyad Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. There is no appearance for the other respondents.

4. The petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in Annexure 1 O.P. (M.V) 891/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘M.A.C.T.’), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner company is also the 2nd respondent in Annexure 3 O.P.(M.V) No.253/2011 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Attingal. It is the case of the petitioner that the accident in respect of these two Original Petitions before two Tribunals have occurred consequent to the collusion between two motor vehicles. The riders of both vehicles have filed Annexure 1 O.P.(M.V.) No.891/2011 before the M.A.C.T., Thiruvananthapuram and Annexure 3 O.P.(M.V) No. 253/2011 before the M.A.C.T., Attingal. The respective claimants have claimed negligence on the part of each other. Since the two Original Petitions have arisen from the same accident and the issue regarding negligence on both the parties has been decided by taking into account the documents adduced by both the parties, it is only just and necessary that both cases are tried by a single Tribunal in joint trial. 483 Therefore, it is urged that it is necessary in the interest of justice that Annexure 3 O.P. (MV) No.253/2011 which is pending before M.A.C.T., Attingal be transferred to the MACT, Thiruvananthapuram, where O.P.(MV) No.891/2011 is pending. It is in the light of these aspects the petitioner has filed the instant Transfer Petition with the aforesaid prayers.

5. Section 24 of the C.P.C. provides as follows:

“Section 24: General power of transfer and withdrawal.–(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.

(2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.

(3) For the purposes of this section,-

(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court;

(b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the ex