THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Tr.C.M.P. No.296 of 2010 ORDER: Respondents 4, 5 and husband of respondent No.6, by name, Desham Laxmaiah Goud, filed O.S.No.126 of 2003 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 14-05-2003, in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein figured as defendant No.2, and the 2nd respondent as defendant No.1, in that suit. Several other parties are also there. The trial of the suit commenced, and it is stated that it is at the stage of recording of evidence of the defendants therein. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.807 of 2008 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of partition of those very properties, along with certain others. The petitioner is shown as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.807 of 2008. This application is filed with a prayer to transfer the said suit, to the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner contends that there is a clear overlap of the subject-matter of both the suits, and most of the parties are also common. He submits that, if the suits are adjudicated by different Courts, there is every likelihood of conflicting judgments being rendered. The application is opposed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.126 of 2003. According to them, O.S.No.126 of 2003 is at an advanced stage and the other suit was filed only in the recent past, and clubbing both of them would delay the disposal of the suit, which was filed way back in the year 2003. Heard Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. It is no doubt true that the reliefs claimed in the suits, referred to above, are different. In the first O.P., the relief claimed is the one, of specific performance of an agreement of sale and consequential injunction, and the other suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. However, it is not denied that several parties are common to both the suits, and the property involved is almost common. Further, a decree passed in one suit would have its own bearing on the relief claimed in the other suit. Hence, the Tr.C.M.P. is allowed, and O.S.No.807 of 2008 is transferred from the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, to the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. On such transfer, it shall be heard along with O.S.No.126 of 2003. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31-08-2010. KO