--1-- C.M.P. No. 962 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 962 of 2023 ---- Prakash Kumar Goswami, aged about 55 years, son of Late Bibhishan Goswami, resident of Village – Kushmatand, PO and PS – Govindpur, District - Dhanbad .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. Sanjay Kumar Jha, son of Shri Krishnadeo Jha, resident of village – Kushmatand PO and PS – Govindpur, District - Dhanbad 2. Bijay Kumar, son of Shri Bhola Prasad, resident of Tundi Road, Govindpur PO and PS – Govindpur, District – Dhanbad .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opposite Parties :- Mr. Sanjay Pd. Advocate ---- 08/07.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 06.07.2023 contained in Annexure-5 passed in Civil Transfer Petition No.14 of 2023 by learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad whereby the petition dated 09.05.2023 contained in Annexure-4 for transfer being Civil Transfer Petition No.14 of 2023 filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are three suits pending with the same property and in view of that the prayer was made before the Court for posting all the three suits in one Court which has been rejected, as such the said order may kindly be set aside. He relied in the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Narayan Raja versus Ambika and Another reported in --2-- C.M.P. No. 962 of 2023 (2018) 9 SCC 164. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that so far Original Suit No.396 of 2017 and 159 of 2017 are concerned both is pending in the same Court. He further submits that in O.S. No.48 of 2022 argument is already concluded. 5. From the impugned order, it transpires that two suits are already in one Court and the third suit are almost concluded. In this background, the said order is passed and there is no illegality in the order, as such this petition is dismissed. 6. So far the judgment relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned the facts of that case and the present case are different and defendants are also found to be different which has been noted in the order of learned Principal District Judge which is impugned herein, as such that case is not having the relevance. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/