ORDER : This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kakinada under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking transfer of OS.No.320 of 2021 from II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Kakinada to IV Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences at Visakhapatnam to try along with OS No.99 of 2022. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he filed OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, seeking relief of permanent injunction, against the respondents herein, wherein all the respondents appeared before the trial Court, and filed their written statement, and said case is coming up for framing of issues. The petitioner submits that after receiving summons in OS No.320 of 2021, the 2nd respondent filed suit for partition, which is OS No.99 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences at Visakhapatnam, against himself and respondents 1 and 3 herein. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he filed suit in OS No.320 of 2021, basing on WILL, dated 09.11.2019 executed by his father in his favour, wherein the respondents have filed written statement, denying the execution of the WILL, whereas the 2nd respondent filed suit OS No.99 of 2022, seeking partition of plaint schedule properties, which includes immovable property, shown in OS No.320 of 2021 as item No.5 of schedule shown in OS No.99 of 2022. The main contention of the petitioner is that the issues in both the suits are common, as dispute is in respect of un-registered WILL, dated 09.11.2019, executed by his father in his favour, if the trial of the suits in different Courts is conducted, may lead to conflicting decisions. He prays to allow the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for respondents 1 and 3. None appeared for respondents 2 and 4, though served with notice. Notice also sent to 5th respondent to the correct address, which returned as ‘door locked’. This Court already treated that it is ‘deemed service’. 4. He prays to allow the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for respondents 1 and 3. None appeared for respondents 2 and 4, though served with notice. Notice also sent to 5th respondent to the correct address, which returned as ‘door locked’. This Court already treated that it is ‘deemed service’. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contention of both the parties in both suits is one and the same, and genuineness of the WILL disputed by the respondents has to be decided in both suits, due to that transfer of OS No.320 of 2021 from II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada to try along with OS No.99 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions if any. He prays to allow the petition. 5. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is:- "Whether there are any grounds to transfer OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada of East Godavari District to IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam to try along with OS No.99 of 2022?" 6. POINT: The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Pullettikurthi Varaha Chandra Bose, (2004) 5 ALT 209 , held that: “Necessity for transfer of suits from one Court to another, would arise if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of parties. When such situation does not exist, the relief claimed for transfer of the suit, cannot be granted”. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659 , held as follows: “Section 24 CPC confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings “at any stage” either on an application by any party or suo motu. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercises with due care, caution and circumspection. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercises with due care, caution and circumspection. It is true that normally while making an order of transfer, the Court may not enter into merits of the matter as it may affect the final outcome of the proceedings or cause prejudice to one or the other side. At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the Court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action. Powers under Section 24 CPC cannot be exercised ipse dixit in the manner in which it has been done in the present case”. 8. It is further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that following factors have to be taken into consideration in a situation in which it is the duty of the Court to transfer the case. i) balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; ii) convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; iii) issues raised by the parties; iv) reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; v) important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interest in the litigation; vi) interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the above guidelines are illustrative, but not substantive guidelines. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwinder case referred supra held that “when the property is one and the same, the Court may exercise its inherent discretion to avoid conflicting Judgments, and convenience of parties is one of the considerations to exercise power under Section 24 of the CPC”. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwinder case referred supra held that “when the property is one and the same, the Court may exercise its inherent discretion to avoid conflicting Judgments, and convenience of parties is one of the considerations to exercise power under Section 24 of the CPC”. 10. In the present case, at the first instance the petitioner filed OS No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada in respect of one item of immovable property, which is extracted as under: SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTIES Agricultural land an extent of Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.5.13 cents, covered under Survey No.144/5 of Chollonogi village, situated at Chollongi village, Tallarevu mandal, East Godavari District is bounded as follows: East High way road. South Agricultural land of Sanna Bhaskara Rao & Kattamena Nageswar Rao. West Agricultural land of Kanakala Venkata Ramana. North Agricultural land of Vasa Satyanarayana. 11. In the said suit, the plaintiff has shown his mother, sisters and brother-in-laws as defendants, whereas the 2nd defendant in OS No.320 of 2021, i.e., 2nd respondent in the present petition Smt Bese Rajasree filed OS No.99 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner herein and respondents 1 and 3, seeking partition of five items of the properties, shown in the plaint schedule, which includes immovable property, shown in OS No.320 of 2021, which suit is filed by the petitioner herein. The claim of the petitioner herein in OS No.320 of 2021 is based on un-registered WILL, dated 09.11.2019 said to be executed by his father in his favour, which denied by the defendants by filing written statement in the suit. 12. Therefore, for effective disposal of the suits, the genuineness of the WILL has to be decided by the trial Court in both suits. If both suits are tried at different Courts, it may lead to conflicting Judgments, to avoid the same, it is desirable to transfer OS NO.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada of East Godavari District to IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam to try along with OS No.99 of 2022. This Court cannot direct that both suits shall be clubbed together while invoking the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the CPC, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in Dronavajjula Vidyamba Vs. This Court cannot direct that both suits shall be clubbed together while invoking the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the CPC, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in Dronavajjula Vidyamba Vs. Vallabhajosyula Lakshmi Venkayamma, AIR 1958 AP 218 DB. It is for the transferee Court to decide the same. 13. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. OS.No.320 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada is hereby withdrawn and transferred to IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam to try simultaneously or if both parties agree to club the suit along with OS No.99 of 2022. The II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada shall transmit the case records in OS.No.320 of 2021 after duly indexed to IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam as expeditiously as possible within a period of Four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of Orders of this Court in the present petition. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay if any, granted shall stand vacated.