ORDER: The petitioner/2nd accused in S.C.No.3 of 1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, has preferred the present revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 8.4.1999. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.3 of 1996 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kanyakumari District and he is the complainant in the counter case registered in Cr.No.449 of 1994 by Thiruvattar Police. The offences are under Secs.147, 148, 346, 324, 325 and 307, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.384 of 1996 on the file of this Court and the revision was allowed and the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram was directed to take the complaint on file, the counter case being a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session both the cases arise out of the same transaction and they have to be tried by the same Court. The occurrence and place of offences in both the cases are almost one and the same. If two cases are disposed of by two different Courts, there would be conflict of decision. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to keep S.C.No.3 of 1996 pending on its file till the disposal of the counter case and aggrieved against this, the present revision has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 4. The point that arise for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct? 5.Point: It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.3 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil at Kanyakumari District. The petitioner is the complainant and by virtue of the order passed by this Court, the private complaint was also taken on file for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the cases arise out of the same transaction and they have to be tried by the same Court. The petitioner is the complainant and by virtue of the order passed by this Court, the private complaint was also taken on file for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the cases arise out of the same transaction and they have to be tried by the same Court. There is no dispute that these 2 cases are connected with each other and one is a case investigated by the Police and filed the final report and the other case is filed by the petitioner herein as a complainant for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. The main contention put forward by the petitioner is that the trial in S.C.No.3 of 1996 should be kept pending till the disposal of the counter case. However, it is opposed by the contesting respondent on the ground that evidence in S.C.No.3 of 1996 has already been completed, whereas there is no progress in the private complaint. Apart from that the private complaint is pending only on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge. Whereas S.C.No.3 of 1996 is pending on the file of the Additional Distract and Sessions Judge. He further pointed put that there is no prayer on the part of the petitioner that both cases have to be tried together by one and the same Court and the relief sought for is that the trial of S.C.No.3 of 1996 should be kept pending till the disposal of the private complaint. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that since the case and the counter case arise out of the same transaction, in the interest of justice, both the cases can be tried together to avoid conflict of decision. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial of S.C.No.3 of 1996 can be kept pending till the disposal of the other case. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The private complaint is pending without any progress for the last two years. The petitioner being the complainant may be interested in delaying the prosecution against him and as such I am of the view that both the cases have to be tried together by one and the same Court to avoid conflict of decision. The private complaint is pending without any progress for the last two years. The petitioner being the complainant may be interested in delaying the prosecution against him and as such I am of the view that both the cases have to be tried together by one and the same Court to avoid conflict of decision. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on Mitthulal v. State of M.P., 1975 Crl.L.J. 236, that it is elementary that each case must be decided on the evidence recorded in it and evidence recorded in another case though it may be a relevant one cannot be taken into account for arriving at the decision. Even in civil cases this cannot be done unless the parties are agreed that the evidence in one case may be treated as evidence in the other. There is no dispute about this principle. It is not applicable to the case on hand. There may not be any joint trial, but at the same time both the cases can be simultaneously tried together by one and the same Court and judgment also can be pronounced simultaneously. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 8. For the reasons stated above, S.C.No.116 of 2000 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thakkalai, Kanyakumari District is ordered to be transferred to the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge. Nagercoil at Kanyakumari District and S.C.No.3 of 1996 and S.C.No.116 of 2000 has to be tried simultaneously and disposed of according to law in a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision is ordered accordingly. Crl.M.P.No.4670 of 1999 is closed.