The central legal point established in the judgment is the convenience and expedience of transferring cases with a common subject-matter to a single court for joint trial in the interest of justice.

( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioners have prayed for transfer of Probate Case no. 1 of 2003. now pending in the Court of district Judge, Palamau to the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi and also to transfer Title (Partition) Suit No. 29 of 1990, pending in the Court of learned sub Judge VII at Ranchi to the Court of judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for joint trial of the said Probate Case No. 1 of 2003 and title (Partition) Suit No. 29 of 1990 for the reason that the decision in probate proceeding will have a direct bearing and impact on the partition suit.

( 2 ) IT has been stated that the opposite parties have filed a partition suit in the Court of Sub Judge being Title (Partition) Suit No. 29 of 1990 which is now pending in the court of Sub. Judge VII, Ranchi. All the parties, including the petitioners, have appeared in the said suit. It has been stated that the said properties of partition suit and the properties which are the subject-matter in the probate case are one and the same and all the properties situate in the districts of Ranchi and Lohardaga. None of the properties, which is subject-matter of the probate case, is situated in the district of palamau. Only on the allegation of death of lalita Devi, testatrix of the will, the said probate case has been filed in the Court of district Judge, Palamau. It has been stated that the petitioners have to fight litigations at two distant places in two districts for the same subject-matter and they will be put to suffer unnecessary harassment. It has been stated that the subject-matter of the said two cases is common property and the common stand has been taken by the parties in both the cases, the issues are almost the same and there shall be common evidences in both of the cases. There will be sheer duplication of legal proceedings and the parties shall be put to unnecessary loss and agony. In such case there is possibility of two conflicting decisions. In order to avoid the same and for the ends of justice, the said probate case is required to be transferred to the Court of Judicial Commissioner, ranchi and for the purpose of clubbing the said probate suit with the partition suit, the title (Partition) Suit No. 29 of 1990, pending in the Court of Sub Judge VII is required to be transferred to the said Court of Judicial commissioner, Ranchi.

( 3 ) THE opposite parties have appeared and have filed a counter, contesting the transfer petition. It has been stated that the opposite party No. 1 is the legatee in the registered Will executed by Most. Lalila Devi and he is a resident of district Palamau and it would be inconvenient for him to bring evidences to Ranchi and contest the probate case. It has been stated that the said Lalita devi died within the jurisdiction of the district Judge, Palamau and as such the said probate Case No. 1 of 2003 has been filed in the said Court. There is no valid ground for transfer of the case to the Court of Judicial commissioner, Ranchi.

( 4 ) MR. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the parties, including the opposite party No. 1 have already engaged their counsel at Ranchi in Title (Partition)Suit No. 29 of 1990, which is running for several years in the Court of Sub judge VII at Ranchi. In the said Title (Partition) Suit No. 29 of 1990. the same stand has been taken on behalf of the parties and the issues are almost the same which would arise in Probate Case No. 1 of 2003. The opposite party nas to lead evidences in the said partition suit at Ranchi and the same set of evidences would be required to be adduced for both the cases and the parties shall not have to bear any extra burden for contesting Probate Case No. 1 of 2003 and in that view it will be in the interest of both the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary loss and harassment. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Nirmala devi v. Arun Kum