IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4312 OF 2010 Between : Gogula Narsimha Murthy ... PETITIONER A N D Smt Gogula Rama Mani and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4312 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 03.08.2010 in T.O.P.No.665 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for short, ‘CPC’) to transfer the suit O.S.No.911 of 2008 from the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, to the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, where connected suit in O.S.No.2 of 2010 is pending, was dismissed 2. O.S.No.911 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, was filed by the petitioner herein / plaintiff for permanent injunction with regard to enjoyment of the property, which is said to be a residential building. Whereas, O.S.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Court, was filed by the respondents herein / plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the same property. 3. O.S.No.911 of 2008 was filed for grant of injunction in respect of one of the items of the property, which is the subject matter in O.S.No.2 of 2010. In both the suits, the parties are claiming a house property through a Will. Whereas, the respondents are disputing about a Will. Similarly, the legality of the Will has to be decided in a partition suit. Whether the property in question is an ancestral property liable for partition as contended by the respondents herein in O.S.No.2 of 2010 has to be adjudicated with regard to pleadings. Therefore, if two suits are tried by two different Courts, there would be possibility of conflict of decisions. In order to avoid conflict of decisions both the suits can be tried by one Court. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 03.08.2010 in T.O.P.No.665 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and withdrawing O.S.No.911 of 2008 from the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and transferring the same to the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to try along with O.S.No.2 of 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH, 30 2011. YVL