ORDER:

I have heard learned counsel Mr.Umar Abdullah, representing on behalf of Mr. S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Syamsunder Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of C.P.C seeking transfer of O.S.No.152 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge‟s Court, Amalapuram and O.S.No.4 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge‟s Court at Amalapuram to VI Additional District Judge‟s Court, Visakhapatnam, where O.S.No.196 of 2022 is pending.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she filed suit in O.S.No.196 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional District Judge‟s Court, Visakhapatnam against the respondent wherein she prayed to cancel the Lok-Adalat award dated 03.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.684 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge‟s Court, Visakhapatnam in respect of agricultural land and also in respect of house property and sought for permanent injunction

2 BSS, J against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, restraining them to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3 filed O.S.No.684 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge‟s Court, Visakhapatnam seeking for partition of properties, wherein father of respondent No.1 and husband of respondent No.2 played fraud and obtained Lok-Adalat award dated 03.03.2017 and then she filed suit for cancelation of Lok-Adalat award. It is also the contention of the petition that respondent No.1 representing by respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.152 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge‟s Court, Amalapuram seeking for declaration in respect of same properties and also filed O.S.No.4 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram for cancelation of the settlement deed executed by her in favour of respondent No.3.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that in all the three suits parties and properties involved are similar due to that all three suit have to be disposed of by the same Court to avoid conflicting judgments, if any. She prays to allow the petition.

6. The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 submit that there are no grounds to transfer the case and plaintiff

3 BSS, J is Dominus Litis, which he entitled to institute his suit in any forum which the Court allows and forum should not be lightly changed and the person cannot be compelled to go to another Court when cause of action for the suit are different. It is also the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein colluded together to defeat the rights of her minor son over item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property and also her right over item No.2 of plaint schedule brought into existence a settlement deed with regard to item No.1 of plaint schedule property and in order to cover up their latches, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.196 of 2022 to cover of the their latches, petitioner filed suit on the file of VI Additional District Judge‟s Court, Visakhapatnam to cancel the Lok-Adalat award on erroneous grounds. She prays to dismiss the petition.

7. Respondent No.3 filed counter stating that he has no objection for transfer both suits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that parties in all the suits are one and the same and their respective contentions are also similar and property involved in the suits are also similar, due to that all suits have to be disposed of by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions, if any. He would further

4 BSS, J submit that if the suits are trial by different Courts, much prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. He prays to allow the petition.

9. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that cause of action in all the three suits are different and respondent No.1 also filed peti