In the interest of justice, a case can be transferred from one court to another under different High Courts if there are common questions of fact and law, the parties are the same, and the transfer would prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

1. The State Bank of India has filed the present application under Ss. 22 and 23(3) read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of Suit No. 844 of 1972 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Ballabhgarh, to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (West Bengal). It is alleged in the application that the petitioner-Bank through its Ballyguange Branch at Calcutta advanced to one Messrs. Sakow Industries (Private) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `said Company ) various types of loans amounting to about Rs. 53 lakhs for the Industrial units of the said Company in Calcutta in the State of West Bengal and Faridabad in the State of Haryana. The said loans also included the loans advanced to Messrs. Tochi and Asavari carrying on business at 36, Industrial-cum-Housing Estate, Faridabad. These concerns were owned by Shri S.P. Mehta, who is Director of the said Company. All the liabilities of the loans were taken over by the said Company later on. It is also alleged in the petition that the loans advanced to the said Company were personally guaranteed by its two Directors, namely, Shri S.P. Mehta and Shrimati Nirmala Devi Mehta (wife of Shri S.P. Mehta). The said Company also pledged, hypothecated, charged its goods machinery, produce, merchandise, bills and book-debts etc. with the petitioner-Bank lying in the godowns of the said Company at Rajpur and Khaikhli in the State of West Bengal and at 36, Industrial-cum-Housing Estate, Faridabad, as security for the repayment of the loans. The said-Company also agreed to mortgage with the petitioner-Bank their lands and buildings at 36, Industrial-cum-Housing Estate, Faridabad as security. It was also agreed upon that if the said Company does not abide by the financial discipline regarding the repayment of the aforesaid loans, the petitioner-Bank shall be entitled to call for the entire amount of loans including interest and other charges accrued thereon and to take physical possession of all the goods, produce, stocks, merchandise etc. The whole amount advanced to the said-Company by the petitioner-Bank amounted to about Rs. 53 lakhs. Not a single penny out of the loans advanced was returned by the said-Company in spite of persistent demands made by the petitioner-Bank.

2. In order to realise the loans, the petitioner-Bank filed a civil suit in the High Court at Calcutta in its ordinary civil jurisdiction for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,05,463.02 against the said Company and the two guarantors, namely, Shri S.P. Mehtra and Mrs. Nirmala Devi Mehta (State Bank of India V/s. Sakow Industries (Private) Ltd., Suit No. 542 of 1972). The High Court appointed two Receivers on November 24, 1972, to take possession of the godowns of the said-Company. The Receivers succeeded in taking possession of the godowns at Rajpur but were not allowed to take possession of the godown at Khaikhli. They however, did not attempt to take possession of the godowns at Faridabad. The aforesaid suit was filed in the High Court at Calcutta on 23.11.1972, whereas the said-Company changed its registered office from 10, Middleton Row, Calcutta, to 13, Lower Range, Calcutta, on 16.11.1972. As the new registered office of the said-Company did not fall within the original side territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, the said-Company raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and the petitioner-Bank, in view of the said objections, withdrew the aforesaid suit from the Calcutta High Court with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action against the defendants in a proper forum vide order of the High Court dated 18.12.1972. During the interval that elapsed between the withdrawing of the suit from the High Court and filing of the fresh suit in the Alipore Court, it was found by the petitioner-Bank that the said-Company had broken the locks of the petitioner-Bank from their godowns at Khaikhli i