M RAMAKRISHNA SASTRY Vs. M SEETARAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER: The defendant in O.S.No. 38 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntru filed this petition seeking transfer of O.S.No. 38 of 1993 to the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali to be tried along with O.S.No. 56/90 pending in that Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are: The first respondent herein filed O.S.No. 56 of 1990 on the file the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali to recover a sum of Rs. 93,445-90 said to be due to him from the petitioner on a settlement of account with regard to the income from his property that fell to his share in the earlier family partition. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No. 38 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur seeking partition of the estate which fell to the share of their deceased father in the earlier family partition, into three equal shares and for separate posession of two such shares and for other reliefs. The petitioner submits that the evidence - both oral and documentary - in both the suits is one and the same and that the subject matter in both the suits is also same and as such he seeks transfer of O.S.No. 38 of 1993 from the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur to the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali for being tried along with O.S.No. 56/90 which is pending.

(3.) Notice before admission was given to the respondents. The respondents filed counter-affidavit contending mat the subject-matter and causes of action in the two suits are quite distinct and different; that there are no common or identical questions of law or fact involved in the two suits; that the parties are different; that there is no iota of commonness between the two suits; that this Tr.C.MP. is filed only with a mala fide intention to protract the part-heard suit O.S.No. 56 of 1990; that this petition is devoid of merits and is net maintainable; hence the same may be dismissed