Sunanda Bhandare,j. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 24 of the Codeof Civil Procedure the petitioner is seeking transfer of the suit no. 290 of 1985pending in the Court of Shri V. K. Jain, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi filed by therespondents against the petitioner for permanent and mandatory injunctionrestraining her, through her agents, representatives, employees or associatesfrom constructing rooms and digging the Barsati floor of Flat No. 402, 5kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and other consequential relief on theground that another suit filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Jain who is the son ofthe petitioner herein, for recovery of damages against the petitioner and fiveothers, is pending in this Court and it is expedient to hear the two suitstogether. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the issues in the twosuits are somewhat similar and if both the suits are tried together, it will avoidmultiplicity and conflicting decisions. Learned counsel referred to the judgmentof the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank, Madras v. Chemical Construction Co. and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1514 wherein it has been held as follows :- "although the exercise of this discretionary power cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of any cast iron formula uniformlyapplicable to all situations. Yet, certain broad propositions as towhat may constitute a ground for transfer can be deduced fromjudicial decisions. One of them is that where two suits raisingcommon questions of facts and laws between parties common to boththe suits, are pending in two different courts, it is generally in theinterest of justice to transfer one of those suits to the other forumto be tried by the same Court, with consequent avoidance of multiplicity in the trial of the same issues and the risk of conflicting decisions thereon. The instant case falls squarely within this category. "from the perusal of the plaint in the two suits and considering the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that ins. N. 290/85 for injunction pending in the Court of Shri V. K. Jain, Sub Judge,delhi though the plaintiff therein i. e. respondent herein has admitted thatshri Ashok Kumar Jain ; e. son of the petitioner herein is the owner of Barsatifloor No. 402, this Ashok Kumar Jain has not been made a party to the suitand the relief sought for is against the mother of Shri Ashok Kumar Jain. Apart from Mrs. Apart from Mrs. R. S. Jain, petitioner herein, there are three other defendantsnamely ; S. H. O. , Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Shri Vijay Kapur who was the original owner of the landon which the building was constructed and it is alleged that these three defendants did not take any remedial action against Mrs. R. S. Jain from carrying onthe construction. The main allegation in this suit is that the constructioncarried out by Mrs. R. S. Jain is unauthorised and has resulted in weakeningthe portion in the occupation of the plaintiff because the building has becomeweak and developed cracks in walls. The suit for damages pending in thiscourt is filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Jain who is the son of the present petitioner. The present petitioner is not a party in that suit and apart fromrespondent no. 1 herein, there are 5 other defendants who are also the residentsof the same building. In this suit, Shri Ashok Kumar Jain has claimeddamages of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 sufferred not only on account of the injunctionobtained by respondent No. 1 herein from the court of Shri V. K. Jain, subjudge, 1st Class,, Delhi but also because of the loss caused by the defendantsto their property by breaking and causing damages to the suit property. Though, it may be true that some of the evidence in the two suits is likely tobe over-lapping, I find that the main controversy in the two suits is notcommon. Though, in the suit pending before Shri V. K. Jain, Sub Judge,1st Class, Delhi it is admitted by respondent no. 1 that the real owner isashok Kumar Jain. Ashok Kumar Jain is not a party to that suit nor are theother tenants parties in the suit for damages. Thus, the parties in both thesuits are also not common. ( 3 ) THIS being the position, in my view, the case of the petitioner is notcovered by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Overseasbank s case (supra ). ( 4 ) IN the result the petition is dismissed.