IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 207 of 2010() ------------------------- OS.163/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ MOHAMED RAFI,S/O.KUNCHUMOHAMED, CHENEEZHUTH PARAMBIL,PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN O.P -------------------------------- ABDUL RAHMAN,S/O.KUTTY,KALARIPARAMBIL, PARAVOOR TALUK,KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE,KEZAKKEPRAM KARA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.207 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010. ORDER This is a petition for transfer of O.S.No.163 of 2009 from the court of learned Sub Judge, North Paravur to the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.276 of 2009 in the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda against respondent seeking a declaration that the cheque referred to therein was issued as security for prompt performance of an agreement for sale executed between respondent and brother of petitioner and for an injunction against respondent recovering any amount on the strength of the said agreement for sale. Respondent filed O.S.No.163 of 2009 in the court of learned Sub Judge, North Paravur against petitioner and his brother for recovery of Rupees eight lakhs allegedly paid to the petitioner as power of attorney holder of his brother being the advance sale consideration referred to therein. Petitioner/defendant No.1/ in O.S.No.163 of 2009 seeks transfer of that case from the court of learned Sub Judge, North Paravur to the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakkda. According to the learned counsel, issues to be decided in both the suits are the same and hence to prevent divergent findings it is necessary that the cases are to be consolidated, tried and disposed of jointly by the same court. Learned counsel for respondent contends that cause of action in the suits are different and there is no necessity for a joint trial. If at all consolidation is required, it is prayed that O.S.No.276 of 2009 may be transferred to the Sub Court, North Paravur. Tr.P.(C) No.207/2010 2 2. I have heard respective contentions raised by parties hereto in their respective suits. Dispute concerns an agreement for sale and whether petitioner has received any amount from respondent in whatever capacity it be. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to think that the suits are to be disposed of by the same court. But issue of joint trial is left to the court concerned to be decided after hearing both sides. 3. So far as the court to which the case is transferred is concerned, respondent has not so far requested transfer of O.S.No.276 of 2009 to the Sub Court, North Paravur. It would appear that the alleged agreement for sale was executed in respect of a property, it is not disputed situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakkuda. Having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.S. Nos.163 of 2009 pending in Sub Court, North Paravur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda for trial and disposal. Question whether the said suit has to be tried and disposed of jointly with O.S.No.276 of 2009 pending in the transferee court shall be decided by that court after hearing both sides. Tr.P.(C) No.207/2010 3 ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks cks