B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition was filed for transfer of OS No. 41 of 2000 filed by the respondent against the petitioner-finance company on the file of the learned Principal senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil judge, Rajahmundry to be tried along with os No. 161 of 2001 being comprehensive in nature filed by the petitioner-finance company against the respondent for recovery ofrs. 3,21,104/ -. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent resisted this petition contending that though the hire- purchase agreement stated that the respondent took the loan at rajahmundry by hypothecation of lorry bearing No. AP 31 T 1053, he, in fact, took the loan at Visakhapatnam and was paying the instalments there; the said lorry was seized by the petitioner- finance company for non-payment monthly instalments; the respondent filed the suit at Visakhapatnam and obtained orders for the release of the said lorry; the petitioner-finance company having failed to raise any objection in its written statement with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court at Visakhapatnam, cannot raise that issue in this petition and such an action is contrary to Section 21 cpc. The second contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the suit, os No. 41 of 2000, filed by him at visakhapatnam is earliest in point of time and the subsequent suit, OS No. 161 of 2001, filed by the petitioner-finance company at rajahmundry either has to be stayed, or to be transferred to the Court at Visakhapatnam but the suit, OS No. 41 of 2000, filed by him at Visakhapatnam cannot be transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, rajahmundry. The third contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that lack of jurisdiction to the Court, which has entertained the suit, is not one of the grounds for transfer under Section 24 cpc, under Section 24 CPC a suit from one Court to the other can be transferred for the convenience of both the parties but in this petition the petitioner-finance company did not even raise the plea of convenience of both the parties while seeking transfer and as such this petition has to be dismissed. ( 3 ) THE factual background of the case is that the respondent, even according to him, took the loan in respect of the lorry from the petitioner-finance company under hire-purchase agreement agreeing to pay the hire charges monthly till the entire debt was cleared. He fell in arrears of hire charges to a tune of Rs. 81,402/- At this stage, the petitioner-finance company seemed to have seized the lorry. Questioning the seizure thereof, the respondent filed the said OS No. 41 of 2000 at Visakhapatnam for recovery of the lorry on receipt of balance amount of Rs. 81,402/- along with interest and for restoration of the possession of the lorry back to it and also grant of ad interim injunction against the petitioner-finance company from recording any transfer of registration of the lorry in any other name except the respondent. The respondent also filed IA No. 926 of 2000 in the said OS No. 41 of 2000 seeking interim custody of the lorry. The learned principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, by his order, dated 30-8-2000, directed the lorry to be released to the respondent on his furnishing immovable property security for the amount due by him under the hire purchase agreement. Though the respondent furnished third party immovable property security on 12-6-2001, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-finance company raised several objections including non-registration of the security bond and that the value of the property was not commensurate with the amount due from the respondent. The learned Principal Senior civil Judge, Visakhapatnam rejected all the contentions. As far as registration is concerned, the learned Principal Senior civil Judge, Visakhapatnam took the view that the security bond need not be registered for in judicial proceeding. As far as the insufficiency of the amount, the learned Principal Senior Civil judge, Visakhapatnam jumped at the conclusion : "according to the petitioner the amount due is concerned is an exaggerate figure probably basing on some fabricated papers. Admittedly the original hire purchase agreement is not produced before this court to ascertain the same, however, this controversy in issue can be settled only after full trial but not at this stage. " the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, visakhapatnam, in the last paragraph of his order, categorically directed the petitioner-finance company to deliver to the advocate-Commissioner the lorry, which was in their yard at Rajahmundry at 12. 00 noon on 17-7-2001. " the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, visakhapatnam, in the last paragraph of his order, categorically directed the petitioner-finance company to deliver to the advocate-Commissioner the lorry, which was in their yard at Rajahmundry at 12. 00 noon on 17-7-2001. ( 4 ) IN the mean time, the petitioner-finance company having cancelled the hire-purchase agreement gave notice to the respondent calling upon him (respondent) to pay back the entire amount due to them (petitioner-finance company) under the hire-purchase agreement. The respondent not only received the notice but also gave reply disputing the quantum of amount. Under those circumstances, the petitioner-finance company filed OS No. 161 of 2001 against the respondent on the file of the learned principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for a decree in their (petitioner- finance company s) favour for a sum of rs. 3,21,104-00 ps. and sought permanent injunction against the respondent and his men from taking the lorry from the possession of the petitioner-finance company in any manner whatsoever. Thereafter this petition was field seeking transfer of OS no. 41 of 2000 pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, visakhapatnam to be tried along with OS no. 161 of 2001 on the file of the learned principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. ( 5 ) FIRSTLY it is seen that the very first sentence of hire-purchase agreement says that the agreement was made at rajahmundry. Clause 16 of the hire purchase agreement states that any suit, petition, application or other legal proceedings relating to the agreement should be instituted by either parry only in the Court or Courts within the local limits of Rajahmundry. From the order passed by Principal Senior Civil judge, Visakhapatnam, on 13-7-2001 in OS no. 41 of 2000. It is evident that the seized lorry is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Rajahmundry. From the order passed by Principal Senior Civil judge, Visakhapatnam, on 13-7-2001 in OS no. 41 of 2000. It is evident that the seized lorry is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Rajahmundry. ( 6 ) THE relevant portion of Section 20 cpc reads:"subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of commencement of suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such cases either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of the action wholly or in part, arises explanation 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IT is seen from the cause title of os No. 41 of 2000 filed by the respondent that the petitioner- finance company is shown to have been located at Bheemavaram, West godavari District. From the order of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 13-7-2001, in OS No. 41 of 2000 it is seen that the lorry is at Rajahmundry. But to bring the suit, OS No. 41 of 2000 within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at visakhapatnam, the respondent alleged that the agreement was entered into at visakhapatnam; he was paying monthly instalments at Visakhapatnam and the lorry was seized at Visakhapatnam. In the light of the hire purchase agreement, which was reduced into writing, it is difficult to accept this contention. In the light of the hire purchase agreement, which was reduced into writing, it is difficult to accept this contention. However, the learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contends that any objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court has to be taken in the Court of the first instance but such objection should not be allowed in the appellate or revisional Court as per section 21 CPC and the petitioner-finance company has failed to do so; hence it cannot raise the same in this petition. The learned counsel for the respondent produced before me the written statement filed by the petitioner-finance company in OS No. 41 of 2000. At the same time, the specific case of the petitioner-finance company in this petition is that they (petitioner-finance company ) entrusted this case to their office assistant, by name, Gowri Sankar, the said gowri Sankar played fraud on the petitioner-finance company and even after the Court passed the order for release of the lorry the said Gowri Sankar did not inform the petitioner- finance company and in fact he was absconding and left the services of the petitioner- finance company. The petitioner-finance company alleged collusion by the said Gowri Sankar with the respondent. In the normal course, any prudent advocate would have raised the issue with regard to the lack of jurisdiction in the Court of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, had he perused the hire-purchase agreement. If the advocate does not take such a plea, it is a sad reflection on his conduct. Be that as it may, the Court of Principal senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam while entertaining the suit, OS No. 41 of 2000, filed by the respondent was expected to scrutinize whether that it had jurisdiction to entertain that suit OS No. 41 of 2000 ) or not. If it (Court) had examined the hire purchase agreement, it would have noticed that it has no jurisdiction. In fact, the learned principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in his order, dated 13-7-2001, clearly recorded the finding that the original hire purchase agreement was not produced before it (Court ). I do not know how the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, visakhapatnam entertained OS No. 41 of 2000 even without looking into the original hire purchase agreement. This act of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge is nothing but gross dereliction of duty cast on him. I do not know how the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, visakhapatnam entertained OS No. 41 of 2000 even without looking into the original hire purchase agreement. This act of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge is nothing but gross dereliction of duty cast on him. ( 8 ) BE that as it may, even assuming that the petitioner- finance company did not raise that issue in its written statement filed in the Court of the learned Principal senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, the fact remains that the respondent agreed in his plaint itself that he committed default in paying monthly instalments. When once the fact of non-payment of instalments is admitted, the financier gets liberty to terminate the hire-purchase agreement and call back the entire amount due under the hire-purchase agreement. That is what was done in this case. When the respondent tried to dispute the quantum of amount payable under the hire-purchase agreement, the petitioner-finance company filed the said os No. 161 of 2001 against the respondent on the file of the learned Principal Senior civil Judge, Rajahmundry for recovery of money. To my mind, this is a comprehensive suit. The rights and obligations of the parties under the hire purchase agreement have to be adjudicated in the comprehensive suit i. e. OS No. 161 of 2001 filed in the court at Rajahmundry but not in OS No. 41 of 2000 at Visakhapatnam Court, which was filed by the respondent on mere surmises and conjectures more so without any proof so far on the allegations made by the respondent with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the principal senior civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. ( 9 ) THE second contention of the respondent is that his suit, OS No. 41 of 2000 in Visakhapatnam being first in time, the suit, OS No. 161 of 2001 filed by the petitioner- finance company in the Court at Rajahmundry has to be stayed as per section 10 CPC and the suit OS No. 41 of 2000 at Visakhapatnam cannot be transferred to the Court at Rajahmundry to be tried along with suit, OS No. 161 of 2001, filed by the petitioner- finance company at a later point of time. When two suits are filed in two different Courts, power is conferred on the High Court or the District Court under Section 24 CPC for transfer of any suit for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. This is intended to avoid conflicting decisions. The second one is the convenience of both the parties. Admittedly in both the suits the basic document upon which the parties have placed reliance is the hire purchase agreement; the dispute has to be adjudicated on the basis of that agreement. Apart from the possibility of delivery of conflicting decisions, the precious time of the Courts and the money required to be spent by both the parties in attending two Courts for adjudication of the same lis would be wasted. Hence both the Courts below cannot be allowed to proceed with the suits pending on their respective files. Firstly I am of the view that though both the suits arose from the same cause of action, the reliefs sought for in both the cases are not the same. Even assuming that the issue to be decided in both the cases is substantially same under section 24 of CPC, the District Court or the High Court is empowered to transfer one of the suits to the Court where the other suit is pending to be tried along with it to avoid conflicting decisions and also keeping the convenience of the parties in mind instead of directing the Court where second suit is filed not to proceed with the case otherwise the power of transfer conferred other superior Courts becomes redundant. Hence I cannot agree with the contention of the Respondent s Counsel in this regard. ( 10 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is which suit has to be transferred and to which Court. To my mind, the hire-purchase agreement was entered into at Rajahmundry and the witnesses are at Rajahmundry. While the respondent filed the suit, OS No. 41 of 2000 at. Visakhapatnam at a time when the petitioner-finance company seized the said lorry for non-payment of certain monthly instalments, the petitioner- finance company filed the suit, OS No. 161 of 2001, at rajahmundry for recovery of the entire amount that was advanced under the hire purchase agreement after cancelling that agreement. Visakhapatnam at a time when the petitioner-finance company seized the said lorry for non-payment of certain monthly instalments, the petitioner- finance company filed the suit, OS No. 161 of 2001, at rajahmundry for recovery of the entire amount that was advanced under the hire purchase agreement after cancelling that agreement. Hence the suit, OS No. 161 of 2001, filed by the petitioner-finance company at Rajahmundry is comprehensive in nature. Therefore I have no hesitation to hold that the suit, OS No. 41 of 2000, filed by the respondent at Visakhapatnam has to be transferred to be tried along with the comprehensive suit, OS No. 161 of 2001, filed by the petitioner- finance company at rajahmundry. ( 11 ) NEXTLY the learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that even the plea of convenience was not raised in this petition. In paragraph 19 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition it is inter alia stated : "in view of the terms and conditions of the hire-purchase agreement and to avoid possible conflict of decisions and inconvenience and hardship in adducing the same evidence in the two suits if separately tried, it is just and necessary that the suit OS No. 41 of 2000 is ordered to be transferred to the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, rajahmundry, to be tried along with O. S. No. 111 of 2001 (OS No. 161 of 2001 ). " from the above, I feel that the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the plea of convenience was not raised in this petition does not hold water. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, the transfer petition has to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances with costs.