respondent claimed title to the plaint A schedule property based on the will allegedly executed by Meenakshi Amma. That suit was resisted contending that the will relied upon by third respondent was subsequently modified by a settlement deed and also by a subsequent will executed by Meenakshi Amma. O.S. 48 of 2002 was subsequently instituted seeking a decree for fixation of the boundary. That suit was instituted by respondents 1 and 2 against third respondent. Insolvency petition 4 of 2002 was subsequently instituted by respondents 1 and 2 before Sub Court, Kottarakkara to declare third respondent an insolvent alleging acts of insolvency against him. The argument of the learned senior counsel is that even though the disputes to be resolved in O.S.331 of 2001 and O.S. 48 of 2002 are not the same to be resolved in the Insolvency Petition pending before Sub Court, Kottarakkara, evidence to be let in are interconnected and for a proper appreciation of evidence it is necessary to try suits as well as Insolvency Petition by the same court and therefore learned District Judge should have directed transfer of O.S. 331 of 2007 and O.S. 48 of 2002 to Sub Court, Kottarakkara and even if they are not jointly tried, they are to be tried by the very same court. Petitioners are the
