VASA RAJESH Vs. VASA LATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kakinada under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC"), seeking transfer of OS.No.320 of 2021 from II Additional Junior Civil Judge"s Court at Kakinada to IV Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences at Visakhapatnam to try along with OS No.99 of 2022.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that he filed OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge"s Court, Kakinada, seeking relief of permanent injunction, against the respondents herein, wherein all the respondents appeared before the trial Court, and filed their written statement, and said case is coming up for framing of issues. The petitioner submits that after receiving summons in OS No.320 of 2021, the 2nd respondent filed suit for partition, which is OS No.99 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge-cumSpecial Judge for Economic Offences at Visakhapatnam, against himself and respondents 1 and 3 herein. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he filed suit in OS No.320 of 2021, basing on WILL, dtd. 9/11/2019 executed by his father in his favour, wherein the respondents have filed written statement, denying the execution of the WILL, whereas the 2nd respondent filed suit OS No.99 of 2022, seeking partition of plaint schedule properties, which includes immovable property, shown in OS No.320 of 2021 as item No.5 of schedule shown in OS No.99 of 2022. The main contention of the petitioner is that the issues in both the suits are common, as dispute is in respect of un-registered WILL, dtd. 9/11/2019, executed by his father in his favour, if the trial of the suits in different Courts is conducted, may lead to conflicting decisions. He prays to allow the petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for respondents 1 and 3. None appeared for respondents 2 and 4, though served with notice. Notice also sent to 5th respondent to the correct address, which returned as door locked". This Court already treated that it is deemed service".