THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2414 of 2010 ORDER: It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner had to make rounds to the Court of District Judge, Chittoor and to this Court on number of occasions to ensure that two suits filed by him are heard by a forum where he does not have any apprehension, and gets proper services from the Bar. The petitioner filed O.S.No.263 of 2001 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piler against respondent No.1 and others for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. He has also filed O.S.No.17 of 2002 in that Court against the respondents herein for partition in respect of different items of property. He approached the District Court by filing Tr.O.Ps. stating that no Advocate in that Court is cooperating with him so much so, that the Bar Association of that place has passed a resolution to the effect that no Advocate shall enter appearance for him. For one reason or the other, the effort made by the petitioner to get transferred O.S.No.17 of 2002 did not fructify. However, Tr.O.P.No.52 of 2005 filed by him for transfer of O.S.No.263 of 2001 was allowed by the District Court and that the suit was transferred to the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi; and it was renumbered as O.S.No.1148 of 2005. It is now said to be pending in the Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. The petitioner filed Tr.O.P.No.253 of 2009 with a prayer to transfer the other suit i.e. O.S.No.17 of 2002 from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piler to the Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. That Tr.O.P. was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 30.04.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner ad Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, who alone contested the matter. The circumstances under which the petitioner had to file two separate suits for partition are not immediately before this Court. The fact, however, remains that both the suits are for same relief, the plaintiff is common and respondent No.1 is figured as defendant in both the suits. The earlier efforts made by the petitioner to get the suits transferred to some other Court was on the basis that the Advocates at Piler have not come forward to appear on his behalf. Be that as it may, Tr.O.P.No.52 of 2005 was allowed and O.S.No.264 of 2001 was transferred to the Court at Tirupathi. Whatever may have been the justification for the District Court in refusing to transfer the suits on the ground of non- cooperation of the Advocates, once a suit was transferred to the Court at Tirupathi, the other suit ought to have been transferred even without there being any specific petition. The application filed by the petitioner for transferring that suit was rejected by making reference to earlier proceedings. The approach of the District Court cannot be countenanced. It did not realize that two suits for partition as between the same parties are pending before different Courts and there is every likelihood of conflicting judgments being rendered. Further, the evidence is required to be adduced in both the suits together. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, Tr.O.P.No.253 of 2009 is allowed and O.S.No.17 of 2002 is transferred from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piler to the Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. On such transfer, it shall be heard along with O.S.No.1148 of 2005. The learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi shall endeavour to dispose of the suits, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.08.2010. kdl