G. ROHINI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-1-2004 in transfer op No. 207 of 2004 on the file of the principal district judge, warangal whereunder os No. 223/2003 has been withdrawn from the file of i additional senior civil judge, warangal and transmitted to the court of the i additional district judge, warangal for trial and disposal alone with os No. 1 1/2003. ( 2 ) OS No. 223/2003 is filed by the revision petitioner seeking a decree for declaration that three registered gift deeds purported to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant, i. e. , the respondent in this revision petition are void and unenforceable and also seeking injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plea of the plaintiff in the said suit is that he was kidnapped by the defendant and her associates and his signatures and thumb impressions were obtained on various papers and registers, on the basis of which, the three gift deeds in question bequeathing the suit schedule house property in favour of the defendant were brought into existence. ( 3 ) OS No. 11/2003 is filed by the respondent herein who is the defendant in os No. 223/2003 against the revision petitioner seeking a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that the will dated 6-7-1987 alleged to have been executed by her mother bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the revision petitioner is false and fabricated and for other incidental reliefs. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY both the suits are between the same parties and the suit schedule property is common to both the suits. While so, the respondent herein (the plaintiff in os No. 11/2003) filed transfer op No. 207/2004 on the file of the district judge, warangal under Section 24 of cpc seeking transfer of os No. 223/2003 to the 1st additional district court, warangal for trial and disposal along with os No. 1 1/2003. The said petition was opposed by the revision petitioner. The court below by order dated 1-4-2004 held that the objections raised by the respondent in the counter are not tenable and accordingly allowed the transfer petition. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. The said petition was opposed by the revision petitioner. The court below by order dated 1-4-2004 held that the objections raised by the respondent in the counter are not tenable and accordingly allowed the transfer petition. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent. ( 6 ) THOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to attack the order under revision on the ground that since the relief sought in both the suits are different and the cause of action for filing the two suits are distinct and not related to each other, i am unable to accept the said contention. The plaints in the two suits are placed before this court. A perusal of the averments in the plaints would show that the issues arising for decision in the two suits are likely to be overlapped and if separate trials are held by different courts, there is a possibility of inconsistent findings being recorded by the two courts. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, both the suits are required to be tried and decided by one court for proper appreciation of the issues involved in the suits and also to avoid conflicting decisions. Hence on that ground, the order under revision does not warrant interference. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the 1st additional district judge is not competent to try os No. 223 of 2003 pending on the file of the i additional senior civil judge and therefore the transfer ordered by the court below is impermissible. The said contention is also devoid of any merit since the law is well settled that the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed under civil courts act does not prohibit the transfer of the suits from a court of lower jurisdiction to the court of higher jurisdiction. It is also a settled principle of law that the substantive right of appeal conferred on the parties is always subject to the provisions of power conferred on High Court and district court under Section 24 of civil procedure code. Merely because one of the parties will be deprived of a particular forum of appeal, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction under Section 24 of cpc is barred. Merely because one of the parties will be deprived of a particular forum of appeal, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction under Section 24 of cpc is barred. It is always open to the High Court or a district court while exercising the power under Section 24 of cpc to order transfer of the suits when it is found that it is necessary to hear both the suits together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also to avoid conflicting decisions. ( 8 ) THE two decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in mukund deo (dead) rep. By his Lr Kasibai and Othes v. Mahadu and others, AIR 1965 SC 703 and in Ram Udgar Singh v. Presiding Officer, labour court, cn division, ranchi and others, AIR 1964 Patna 489 are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said two cases the Supreme Court was interpreting the provisions of up civil laws reforms and amendment act by virtue of which the district courts were enabled to entertain first appeals up to the valuation of rs. 10,000/- and the nature and scope of the power conferred under Section 24 of cpc did not fall for consideration. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the said cases is not applicable to the case on hand. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, i do not find any error of jurisdiction or any patent grave error of law in the order under revision, warranting interference under Article 227 of the constitution of india. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.