1 IN THE LHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7330/2008 Pratapsingh S.Shinde & Ors. PETITIONER VS. Vijay B.Bhosale RESPONDENT Mr.P.D.Pise for petitioner Ms.Gauri Jadhav for respondent CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 28th April,2009 P.C. . This petition is filed against the order dated 11/9/2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Sangli rejecting the application of the petitioner for the transfer of the Civil Suit u/s 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner has filed a Regular Civil Suit bearing no.101/2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge,J.D.Miraj against the respondents seeking injunction restraining the respondents from obstructing the possession of the petitioners in respect of the suit land and not to enter their name in the record of rights and 7 x 12 extracts fraudulently. The suit was filed on 1st April,2007 .The petitioners filed second suit bearing no.315/07 against the Collector of district Sangli and other government officials and against respondent /defendant no. 4 . The said suit was filed for declaration that the mutation entry dt.7/4/2007 which stood in favour of respondent no.4 and made by other respondents/defendants 1,2,3 was illegal and void and the said 2 mutation be cancelled. The petitioners thereafter preferred an application before the District Judge, Sangli for transfer of the Suit filed in the Court of C.J.S.D.Sangli. Learned District Judge has rejected this application . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prayer made and reliefs claimed in both the suits are very much inter-related in respect of the same suit land and the petitioner and respondent are same and identical parties. It is further submitted that these two suit are to be clubbed and to be tried together in the interest of justice as the evidence of the witnesses is going to be the same. Moreover, if the decisions given in both the suits are different then it will be difficult for execution of the decree ,if the plaintiff succeeds in one . Hence it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 2] The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the parties in the suit filed at Miraj are different , so also the reliefs claimed. Only on the ground of convenience of the plaintiff and the witnesses the suit cannot be transferred. The application for transfer is malafide and baseless. Therefore, he has submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly observed that the matters need not be tried by the same Judge. 3] The suit filed at Miraj is for injunction and the suit at Sangli is for declaration of the mutation entry in respect of the suit land.In the suit at Sangli the Collector and other government officers are made party respondents alongwith present respondent and therefore, it is 3 filed in the court of Civil Judge,Senior Division. Where the government is party that suit cannot be tried before the Civil Judge,Junior Division and therefore the suit at Miraj is to be transferred before the Civil Judge,Senior Division,Sangli .The relief claimed in both the suits are such that if both the suits are decided contrary then if one of the suits is decreed the execution may be defeated. This is sufficient reason to allow the application u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the learned Principal District Judge ,Sangli has failed to appreciate it in proper perspective . Hence the order needs interference. The petition is allowed . No order as to costs. The Civil Suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge,J.D. Miraj be transferred to the file of Civil Judge,S.D.Sangli. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)