NAGAMMA Vs. M.PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Mysore in Misc. 61/2013 dismissing the petition filed under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of O.S.No.229/2011 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore, to I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore, where O.S. No.880/2005 is pending.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths Somashekar Kashimath, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , property involved in both the suits are one and the same and parties to both the suits are one and the same. Both suits are pending before the Courts of equal jurisdiction namely Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.). To avoid any conflicting decision being rendered in two suits and there being no dispute to the fact that prayer that would be granted in one suit would overlap with the prayer that may be granted in other suit, it would be in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of both the parties that any one Court should adjudicate the dispute and decide the lis between the parties. It is also admitted by the learned Advocates appearing for parties that in O.S.No.880/2005 defendant's evidence is to be commenced.