IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28639 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.193/2007 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.245/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ABDUL NAZER, S/O.NOORUDHEEN, PALAPPETTI HOUSE, ATHRUSSERY P.O., PONMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MOHAMMED, THOTTUNGAL ANGADI P.O., IREVETTY, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT: --------------- PONMUNDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PONMUNDAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28639 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners have filed separate suits against the respondent in two different courts. The respondent is a local authority. Shop rooms in a building owned by the respondent were purchased by the petitioner in the auction conducted for the purpose subject to the terms and conditions stipulated for such sale. Both petitioners filed separate suits contending that the shop rooms are not suitable for their business purposes and so much so, the bid amount at which the shop rooms were purchased cannot be claimed by the Panchayath. The first petitioner filed the suit before the Munsiff Court, Tirur, and the second petitioner claiming a higher amount as refund from the Panchayath in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction thereof instituted his suit before the Sub Court, Tirur. Both the petitioners together moved an application for transfer of the suit on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur to the Sub Court, Tirur stating that common issues arise for adjudication in the two suits. The learned District Judge after considering the facts and circumstances presented and the submissions made dismissed the transfer petition W.P.(C).No.28639 of 2009 - O 2 by Ext.P8 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned District Judge holding that transfer requested for is not allowable. Subject matter involved in the two suits is different and the parties are also not the same. The only identity involved is that both the plaintiffs have raised more or less similar disputes contending that the local authority is not entitled to the full amount at which they had knocked down the respective shop rooms in the auction. For that reason alone a joint trial of the two suits cannot be allowed. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-