Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have filed C.M.P.S.R. No. 74414 of 1993 under Ss. 23(3) and 24 of Code of Civil Procedure for transfer E.P. No. 50/88 in O.S. No. 15/79 and the decree and all the documents pending on the file of Subordinate Judge, Proddattur, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh to the file of original side of this Court for joint trial along with C.S. No. 448/83. The facts of the case as narrated in the affidavit briefly stated are as follows:— 2. The respondent is a nationalised bank having its office at No. 159, Broadway, Madras-108. The petitioners 1 and 2 are having current account with the respondent-bank from the year 1975 and 1976 respectively and made Fixed Deposit individually with the respondent bank from 30-12-75 and 12-3-1976 respectively and further on 24-6-1977, both the petitioners independently had given title deeds of properties situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Proddatur, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh for sanctioning the loans on independent basis. The second petitioner is the power of attorney to the first petitioner. The respondent/bank never sanctioned any loan against the immovable properties to the petitioners. The petitioners had given fixed deposits to the respondent-bank maturing 10 years from the date of receipts and the first petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,69,000/- from 12-3-1976 to various dates and the second petitioner had given the fixed deposits for Rs. 80,600/- from 30-12-1975 on various dates. The respondent/bank filed a suit O.S. No. 15/79 on the file of the Sub-Court, Proddatur for recovery of packing credit of Rs. 2,89,594-90 as against both the petitioners on the equitable mortgage. The respondent also filed C.S. No. 448/83 on the original side of this Court for recovering Rs. 6,75,000/- with interest against the petitioners on the ground that two shipping documents/drafts for Rs. 7,50,000/- drawn on the Indian Bank letter of Credit were dishonoured by the buyer. The respondent filed E.P. No. 50/88 in O.S. No. 15/79 before the Sub-Court at Proddatur. The petitioners submit that the subject matter in E.P. No. 50/88 in O.S. No. 15/79 on the file of the Sub-Court, Proddatur and the subject matter in C.S. No. 448/83 filed by the petitioner on the original side of this Court, is the same and the issues in both the suits are common. The petitioners submit that the subject matter in E.P. No. 50/88 in O.S. No. 15/79 on the file of the Sub-Court, Proddatur and the subject matter in C.S. No. 448/83 filed by the petitioner on the original side of this Court, is the same and the issues in both the suits are common. Therefore, the petitioners pray for transfer of E.P. No. 50/88 in O.S. No. 15/79 stated to be now pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Proddatur and the subject matter in C.S. No. 448/83 filed by the petitioner on the original side of this Court, is the same and the issues in both the suits are common. Therefore, the petitioners pray for transfer of E.P. No. 50/88 in O.S. No. 15/79 stated to be now pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Proddatur, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh to the file of the original side of this Court for joint trial along with C.S. No. 448/83 and adjudication. 3. Office returned the petition for transfer on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to order transfer as prayed for. The second petitioner insisted upon the office to post the matter before the Court for consideration. Accordingly, the unnumbered C.M.P. along with office note was posted before me for orders. I heard the second petitioner in person and also Mr. Venkateswaran and Mr. R. Subramaniam, learned advocates who assisted the court as amicus curiae. 4. S. 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:— “(1) Where the several Courts having jurisdiction are subordinate to the same Appellate Court, an application under S. 22 shall be made to the Appellate Court. (2) Where such Courts are subordinate to different Appellate Courts but to the same High Court, the application shall be made to the said High Court. (3) Where such Courts are subordinate to different High Courts, the application shall be made to the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Court in which the suit is brought is situate”. 5. In the decision in the case of Pragji Scorji & Co. v. Kalu Mal & Co. reported in A.I.R. 1924 Lahore 306 it is held that Ss. 22 and 23 of Code of Civil Procedure do not apply where transfer to the Original Side of a High Court from a Court subordinate to another High Court is desired. 5. In the decision in the case of Pragji Scorji & Co. v. Kalu Mal & Co. reported in A.I.R. 1924 Lahore 306 it is held that Ss. 22 and 23 of Code of Civil Procedure do not apply where transfer to the Original Side of a High Court from a Court subordinate to another High Court is desired. In the decision in the case of State Bank of India v. Sakow Industries reported in AIR 1976 P & H 321 it was held that the High Court has got power to transfer a suit pending in a court subordinate to it to another court subordinate to different High Court under Sections 22 and 23(3) C.P.C. read with S. 151 C.P.C. In the decision in the case of Vallabbhai v. Chhotalal reported in A.I.R. 1927 Bombay 79, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that under S. 23(3) C.P.C., High Court has got jurisdiction to order transfer of a suit to another Court, even though that Court is outside its appellate jurisdiction. In the decision in the case of Swami Swaroopanand v. Ramji reported in A.I.R. 1979 M.P. 50, a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where a suit is sought to be transferred to a Court subordinate to another High Court, the application for transfer has to be made in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the suit is pending. Under Sections 22 and 23 C.P.C., High Court can transfer a suit pending in a subordinate Court to a Court Subordinate to another High Court. In the decision in the case of Firm Kanhaiyalal. Daga v. Zumerlal reported in AIR 1940 Nagur 145 it is held that the High Court has got jurisdiction to transfer a suit pending in a Court subordinate to it to a Court subordinate to another High Court under Ss. 22 and 23C.P.C. 6. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to transfer an E.P. pending before the Sub-Court, Proddattur, Cuddappah District, Andhra Pradesh to the original side of this Court for joint trial along with C.S. No. 448/83. Accordingly, the office note is correct and this Court cannot entertain this petition for transfer. Accordingly, the Transfer C.M.P. is ordered to be returned. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to transfer an E.P. pending before the Sub-Court, Proddattur, Cuddappah District, Andhra Pradesh to the original side of this Court for joint trial along with C.S. No. 448/83. Accordingly, the office note is correct and this Court cannot entertain this petition for transfer. Accordingly, the Transfer C.M.P. is ordered to be returned. S. Venkateswaran and R. Subramaniam, learned Advocates were appointed as Amicus Curiae for assisting this Court and they argued well and submitted several authorities for arriving at a decision. I am thankful to them for their good service rendered for the cause of justice.