ORDER

This civil revision petition arises against an order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, dismissing the Transfer Original Petition in Tr.O.P.No.50 of 2022.

2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.95 of 2020 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Madhavaram and O.S.No.117 of 2021 pending on the file of the IV Additional District Judge at Ponneri. O.S.No.95 of 2020 has been filed for bare injunction restraining the defendants therein from alienating the suit schedule mentioned property. Along with the said suit, an application was moved in I.A.No.180 of 2020 seeking leave of the court under Order II, Rule 2 of CPC reserving the right to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and other reliefs. The said application came to be dismissed on 16.10.2020. Aggrieved by that order, a civil revision was preferred in C.R.P. (PD) No.2139 of 2020. The said revision was allowed by this court on 17.12.2020 and leave under Order II, Rule 2 of CPC was granted.

3. Subsequently, as leave had been granted, the civil revision petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2021 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge at Ponneri. That suit seeks for declaration that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant is null and void and also seeks for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from putting up any constructions over the property.

4. The parties to the second suit are the 1st respondent and the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [TANGEDCO]. Since few of the issues that has been raised in the suit in O.S.No.95 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Madhavaram and the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2021 pending on the file of the IV Additional District Judge at Ponneri would be common, the plaintiff moved an original petition in Tr.O.P.No.50 of 2022 seeking to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.95 of 2020 pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Madhavaram and transfer the same to the file of the IV Additional District Judge at Ponneri, for being tried with O.S.No.117 of 2021.

5. The respondents were served and despite the fact that though the 1st respondent had no objection, the learned Principal District Judge, dismissed the transfer petition on the ground that since this court by its order dated 17.12.2020 made in C.R.P. (PD) No.2139 of 2020 had directed the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Madhavaram, to dispose of the injunction application, she held that the transfer cannot be granted. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision.

6. In this revision, notice was ordered by this court on 05.08.2024. The respondents were served.

7. Mr.M.Sridhar enters appearance for the 1st respondent and Mr.S.T.Raja enters appearance for the respondents 2 to 4.

8. Heard Mr.D.Manimaran for the civil revision petitione, Mr.M.Sridhar for the 1st respondent, and Mr.E.Kailash Raj on behalf of Mr.S.T.Raja, standing counsel on record for the respondents 2 to 4.

9. I have gone through the records.

10. The relief sought in O.S.No.95 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Madhavaram is inextricably linked with the relief sought for in the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Additional District Judge at Ponneri. There should not be a conflict of judgements between two courts. The contesting parties are also one and the same. In fact, the 1st respondent, a private party, who would be affected by the judgements rendered in both the suits, has no objection for the purpose of transfer.

11. The view taken by the learned Principal District Judge that if the suit in O.S.No.95 of 2020 is transferred, it would violate the directions given by this court in C.R.P. (PD) No.2139 of 2020 is misplaced. This is because, on 17.12.2020, the date on which order was passed by this court in C.R.P. (