U. SANJEEV Vs. SUNDARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this petition is for transfer of O.S. No. 57 of 2012 from the Sub Court, Kottarakkara to the Sub Court, Palakkad to be tried along with O.S. No. 61 of 2012, in the latter court. Petitioner has filed O.S. No. 61 of 2012 in the Sub Court, Palakkad for return of advance money as per Ext. A1, agreement for sale which did not fructify. The respondent has filed O.S. No. 57 of 2012 in the Sub Court, Kottarakkara claiming damages with respect to the very same agreement alleging that breach was on the part of the petitioner. The request is to transfer the case pending in the Sub Court, Kottarakkara to the Sub Court, Palakkad for joint trial.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel that the agreement was executed at Palakkad in respect of the property situated at that place. It is also submitted that even in O.S. No. 57 of 2012, the respondent has given his permanent address as Palakkad though it is stated that he is residing at Kottarakkara. The learned counsel submitted that joint trial of the suits is necessary to avoid conflicting findings on the same issues.

(3.) I need not go into the question where exactly the agreement was executed. But it is admitted that the agreement was executed with respect to a property within the local limits of the Sub Court, Palakkad. It is also not disputed that O.S. No. 61 of 2012 filed for recovery of advance money is pending in the Sub Court, Palakkad. Hence it is necessary that both the suits are tried and disposed of by the same court. Even in the plaint in O.S. No. 57 of 2012, the respondent has given his permanent address as Palakkad though he is stated to be residing at Kottarakkara. Having regard to these aspects of the matter I am inclined to think that the suits are to be disposed of by the Sub Court, Palakkad.