ORDER : The present Tr.C.M.P. is filed by the petitioner seeking order of this Court to withdraw O.S.No.160 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole and transfer the same to the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, to trial along with C.O.S. No.11 of 2021. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner filed O.S. No.159 of 2017 against the father of the respondent herein, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,74,22,175/-basing on the running account maintained by the respondent herein and his father . The said account was maintained basing on the invoices for supplying Aqua Feed to the respondent and his father as they are having several ponds and doing aqua culture (prawn) jointly. On believing them as credit worthy people, the petitioner supplied large quantity of aqua feed, for which the respondents used to pay part payments through bank from 2013 till 06.04.2015 and thereafter, they did not choose to pay the amounts. 3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the adjustment of part payments paid, the respondent herein and his father were liable to pay the remaining balance due of Rs.1,97,58,840/-and the respondent herein agreed to pay an amount of Rs.68,39,170/-out of Rs.1,97,58,840 towards the invoice Nos.8/24, 8/34, 8/40, 8/46, 9/8, 9/11, 9/25, 9/31 and 9/38 and gave acknowledgment letter on 10.10.2015 and also issued cheque bearing No.905742, dated 10.10.2015, for an amount of Rs.68,39,170, drawn on State bank of India, Main Branch, Ongole. On presentation of the said cheque by the petitioner on 12.10.2015, the same was returned with an endorsement that “funds insufficient”, and thereafter the petitioner filed C.C. No.487 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ongole, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the same is pending for further adjudication. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the petitioner also filed O.S. No.160 of 2017 before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ongole, seeking recovery of the said cheque amount along with interest totaling to an amount of Rs.92,22,620/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the petitioner also filed O.S. No.160 of 2017 before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ongole, seeking recovery of the said cheque amount along with interest totaling to an amount of Rs.92,22,620/-. The father of this respondent agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,29,19,670/-out of Rs.1,97,58,840/-towards invoice Nos.8/21, 8/27/ 8/36, 8/42, 8/50, 9/10, 9/20, 9/22, 9/26 and 9/35 and accordingly he issued a letter of acknowledgment dated 10.10.2015 and also issued a cheque bearing No.421559, dated 10.10.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,29,19,670/-. On presentation of the said cheque by the petitioner, the same was returned with an endorsement that “funds insufficient”, and being aggrieved by the dishonor of the cheque, C.C. No.488 of 2015 was filed on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ongole, and the same is pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that in suit O.S.No.159 of 2017 issues were framed and trial is yet to commence and at that stage, the Court below transferred it to the file of Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes at Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, which is renumbered as C.O.S. No.11 of 2021 and the suit O.S. No.160 of 2017 is tried by the Court of the Principal District Court, Prakasam District, at Ongole. As such, there is even possibility of recording of findings may inconsistent with each other and conflicting decrees may be passed by the two different Courts for a same transaction arose between same parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that above said two suits were filed against the respondent and his father, who are separate parties in each suit basing on the same transaction, the petitioner is the common party in both the suits and the defence taken by the respondents in both the suits is common and the documents relied upon by the petitioner and respondents are also common and common evidence was recorded in C.C. No.487/2015 and in C.C. No.488/2015. He further submitted that when the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was enacted, the pecuniary value was fixed at more than 1 crore commercial transaction as requirement for trial of commercial disputes, thereafter, the said pecuniary value was changed by way of an amendment to Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the pecuniary value shall not be less than Rs.3,00,000/-and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even though the Act was amended and the pecuniary value was reduced, the District Court transferred the O.S. No.159 of 2017 to the Special Court for Trial of Commercial disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, on the ground that the value of the suit is more than one Crore i.e., Rs.1,74,22,175/-. The other suit which is pending i.e., O.S.No.160 of 2017 was not transferred to the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes at Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, on the ground that the value of the suit is less than one crore i.e., Rs.92,22,620/-. On verification, the petitioner came to know that the amendment made to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was not notified and on that ground the suit O.S. No.160 of 2017 was not transferred. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that if O.S. No.160 of 2017 is transferred to the file of Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, it meets the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay, expenses. There will also be no need for parties for adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. 9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transactions were taken place between the petitioner and respondents and are out of business transactions since the petitioner is the manufacturer and supplier of aqua feeds to the aqua pond holders as well as aqua culturists. The entire liability is based on invoice, consignments, credit bills and also as per the account books of the petitioners firm. Therefore, the entire transactions are commercial in nature. The entire liability is based on invoice, consignments, credit bills and also as per the account books of the petitioners firm. Therefore, the entire transactions are commercial in nature. Further after its satisfaction of the Court below that the suit O.S. No.159 filed for recovery of Rs.1,29,19,670/-was transferred to the file of Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District and it was also numbered as C.O.S. No.11 of 2021. 10. He further submits that the present suit O.S. No.160 of 2017 which is pending on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Ongole is also arisen out of same transactions, but against the son of the defendant in O.S. No.159 of 2017. The said suit is also filed for recovery of amount of Rs.92,22,620/-. But the same was not transferred to the file of Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, as was done in O.S. No.159 of 2017 only for the reason the value of the suit is below to the prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction, but even after amendment Act 2015 which may cause irreparable loss to the petitioner herein as stated supra. If both the suits were tried by two different Courts, the findings as well as judgments also may differ from one to one. It is against the settled principles of law that, if the transactions are similar in nature and between the same parties, two types of judgments cannot be invited. 11. Learned counsel further reiterated that in view of the amendment to the Section 3 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the pecuniary jurisdiction which was fixed at Rs.1,00,00,000/-was reduced to not less than Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, the present suit O.S. No.160 of 2017 is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts in view of the amendment. As such, the present Tr.C.M.P. is liable to be allowed. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner unilaterally raised the invoice on his own accord without supplying any aqua feed and denied the entire liability as claimed by the petitioner. She further submitted that the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole had transferred one suit in O.S. No.159 of 2017 filed against the father of the respondent to the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. She further submitted that the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole had transferred one suit in O.S. No.159 of 2017 filed against the father of the respondent to the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. She further submitted that the Court below erroneously transferred against the purport of Section 24 of the C.P.C. She further submitted that, admittedly, the value of the suit in O.S. No.160 of 2017 is only Rs.92,22,620/-which is below to value of Rs.1,00,00,000/-and the special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes are not having jurisdiction in respect of the suits which are below the value of Rs.1,00,00,000/-and the amendment act, 28 of 2018 of the Commercial Disputes Act, 2018, is came into effect on 03.05.2018 only. But the present suit is filed prior to the amendment i.e., in the year 2017. Therefore, the amendment in which the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts was reduced from Rs.1,00,00,000/-to not less than Rs.3,00,000/-is not applicable to the present suit. 13. The other contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the present transaction does not come under the definition of Commercial Dispute as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the present Tr.C.M.P. is liable to be dismissed. 14. Having regard to the contentions submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, the fact remains is that the transactions in O.S. No.159 of 2017 as well as in O.S. No.160 of 2017 are one and the same and also between common parties. The contention of the petitioner is that there could not be different verdicts of different courts in respect of the same transaction arisen between common parties is to be considered. The contention of the petitioner is that there could not be different verdicts of different courts in respect of the same transaction arisen between common parties is to be considered. The other contention of the petitioner is that in view of the amendment in the year 2018, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts is reduced from Rs.1,00,00,000/-to Rs.3,00,000/-should be accepted, for which, he relied upon a judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gangisetty Anuradha v. Bijala Subramanyam, 2022 SSC OnLine AP 169, where in it is held as under: "Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the dispute raised in O.S. No.7 of 2020 is a commercial dispute for specified value as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) and (xv) of the Commercial Courts Act as the value of the suit is more than Rs.3,00,000/-. The suit O.S. No.7 of 2020 has been filed based on the dissolution deed of partnership firm seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule property. The subject property hitherto was used for business of the partnership firm, wherein the petitioner was a partner. Hence, the schedule property exclusively used for trade or commerce as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA. No.7843 of 2019. The Commercial Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the lis. This Court found that it is just and appropriate to transfer the suit." 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment in case of Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm Vs. T.N. Electricity Board and Another, (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 705, which is held as follows: "9. The High Court has delved deep into the issue and examined the question from very many angles taking into consideration several dictionaries and books on fish farming brought to its notice and also dealt with several decided cases to draw the conclusion that pisciculture is not agriculture. We have a direct decision of this Court available on the point and being a three-Judge Bench decision binds us. We have a direct decision of this Court available on the point and being a three-Judge Bench decision binds us. It is CIT v. Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, AIR 1957 SC 768 wherein the term 'agriculture' as occurring in sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which defines 'agricultural income' as meaning, amongst other things, 'any income derived from land by agriculture' came up for the consideration of this Court. Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was), spoke on behalf of the three-Judges Bench. A reading of the judgment shows a research by looking into several authorities, meaning assigned by dictionaries and finding out how the term is understood in common parlance. The Court held that the term 'agriculture' has been defined in various dictionaries both in the narrow sense and in the wider sense. In the narrow sense agriculture is the cultivation of the field. In the wider sense it comprises of all activities in relation to the land including horticulture, forestry, breeding and rearing of livestock, dairying, butter-and cheese-making, husbandry etc. Whether the narrower or the wider sense of the term 'agriculture' should be adopted in a particular case depends not only upon the provisions of the various statutes in which the same occurs but also upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The definition of the term in one statute does not afford a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute and the sense in which the term has been understood in the several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which the term should be understood generally. 10...... 11...... 12...... 13. The relevant entry in the Act as its historical background shows was intended to provide electricity at concessional rates or free of any charge to the farmers by dividing them into classes such as small farmers and other farmers. A farmer would be an agriculturist in the traditional sense and narrow meaning of the term. A person engaged in aquaculture or fish farming would not be called a farmer. Neither the legislature while enacting the schedule to the Act as it originally stood nor the State Government issuing the notification amending the schedule can be attributed with the intention that they had intended to make available electricity at concessional rate or without charge to aquaculturists whose activity is purely commercial. Neither the legislature while enacting the schedule to the Act as it originally stood nor the State Government issuing the notification amending the schedule can be attributed with the intention that they had intended to make available electricity at concessional rate or without charge to aquaculturists whose activity is purely commercial. We are also not prepared to hold that in the circle of agriculturists fish farming is understood as agriculture." 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the present transaction does not come under the definition of 2(c) of Commercial Courts Act and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts. The other contention of her is that the amendment act, 28 of 2018 of the Commercial Disputes Acts, in which the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes was reduced is not applicable to the present case on hand since the same was filed prior to the amendment is also not applicable. 17. It is settled principle of law that there cannot be two different judgments for same transaction between same parties. In view of the settled principle of law, the case in hand shall be tried by one Court. As the suit in O.S. No.159 of 2017 was already transferred to the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, the present suit O.S. No.160 of 2017 is also liable to be tried by the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District and also in view of the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court as mention supra, the present Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and the Court below is directed to transfer the O.S. No.160 of 2017 to the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Tr.C.M.P. shall stand closed.