ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the suit in O.S. No.103/2007 and O.S. No.14/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Sr.Div.) Harihara be transferred to any other Court at Shivamogga. 2. The petitioner is defendant No.3 in O.S. No. 103 of 2007 while he is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 14 of 2010. The suits are being proceeded further in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Sr.Div.) Harihar. The petitioner while seeking transfer of the suits contends that by the observations made by the Trial Court in the orders dated 08.09.2016 and 16.09.2016, the Court below has assumed and arrived at a wrong conclusion with regard to the petitioner herein sailing in the same boat with the 1st defendant and in that light the cross-examination has not been permitted. Hence, it is contended that if the proceedings are continued in the same Court, the petitioner is not likely to get justice and therefore, the suits be withdrawn from the Court and be transferred to a different Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in that regard relied on the decision of this Court in the case of A.M. Abdul Rahman Vs. V. Jayaram reported in ILR 1990 Kar 2962 to contend that the Court while exercising the power under Section 24 of the CPC has to construe the phrase “in the ends of justice” in an appropriate manner to render justice to the parties and when the petitioner has put forth such a contention, the transfer is eminent. 4. Having taken note of the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the orders dated 08.09.2016 and 16.09.2016. The said observations are made during the course of the proceedings, in the order sheet. If at all the conclusion as reached by the Trial Court is not the true fact and a wrong observation/order is made by the Trial Court, certainly the petitioner is at liberty to seek legal remedy by having it corrected in the appropriate forum. In that regard, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already filed a petition in W.P. No.49317/2016 assailing the said order, which is pending consideration before this Court. In that regard, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already filed a petition in W.P. No.49317/2016 assailing the said order, which is pending consideration before this Court. If that be the position, all contentions with regard to the error alleged to have been committed by the Trial Court, while passing the orders dated 08.09.2016 and 16.09.2016 could be urged in the said writ petition. Hence transfer of the case for that reason is not sustainable. 5. Therefore I am of the opinion that in the present facts and circumstances, the prayer made in this petition cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.