\ if APHC010133022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 100 OF 2025 Between: Atmakuri Venkata Naga Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Late A.Prakasa Rao, aged about 51 years, Business, R/o.Door No.23-27-32, Ranapratap Street, Satyanarayana, Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP-520 011. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff in OS.No.249 of 2018 & OS.No.190 of 2018 AND 1. Atmakuri Venkata Ramesh Kumar, S/o.Late A.Prakasa Rao, aged about 50 years. Business, R/o.Door No.23-27-9, Ranapratap Street, Satyanarayana, Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP-520 Oil. ...Respondent/Defendant in OS.No.249 of 2018 & OS.No.190 of 2018 ..a 2. Immadisetty Sailaja, W/o.I.Seetharamanjaneya Prasad, aged about 54 years. Housewife, R/o.Door No.23-15-9/4, Tirumalasetty Vari Street, Satyanarayana, Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP-520 Oil. 3. Atmakuri Venkata Subrahmanya Bharathi Devi, W/o.Late A.Prakasa Rao, aged about 70 years. Housewife, R/o.Door No.23-27-9. Ranapratap Street, Satyanarayana, Vijayawada, Krishna District AP-520 011. ...Respondents/Defendants 2 & 3 in OS.No.190 of 2018 Petition filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw the suit O.S.No.249 of 2018 District Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to be tried along with O.S.No.190 of 2018 for effective adjudication. lA NO: 1 OF 202.*; praying that in the on the file of II Additional same to the Court of XIII Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.190 of 2018 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. lA NO: 2 OF 20?!^ Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.249 of 2018 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. lA NO: 3 OF 202^ Between: 1. Atmakuri Venkata Ramesh Kumar, S/o.Late A.Prakasa about 50 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Door No.23-27-9, Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District-520 Oil. Rao, aged Ranapratap t-r 2. Immadisetty Sailaja, W/o.I.Seetharamanjaneya Prasad, aged about 54 years, Housewife, R/o.Door No.23-15-9/4 A1, Tirumalasetty Vari Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District-520 011. Street 3. Atmakuri Venkata Subrahmanya Bharathi Devi, W/o.Late A.Prakasa Rao, aged about 70 years. Housewife, R/o.Door No.23-27-9, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna Ranapratap Street District-520 011. ...Petitioners/Respondents AND Atmakuri Venkata Naga Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Late A.Prakasa Rao, aged about 51 years, Occ:Business, R/o.D.No.23-27-32, Ranapratap Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District-520 011. ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Interim Stay Order dated 26.03.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in Tr.C.M.P.No.100 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Sai Rohit Counsel for the Respondents: Smt Nimmagadda Revathi The Court made the following: Sr, the; HON’BLE SRI justice V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.100 of 2025 OFIDER; The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw O.S.No.249 of 2018, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to try along with O.S.No.190 of 2018. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 3. The respondent No.1 herein filed a Suit in O.S.No.249 of 2018, the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the if seeking a decree for possession of plaint schedule properties therein and he has also filed another suit in O.S.No.190 of 2018, on the file of the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein seeking for partition of the suit schedule properties and also for allotment of the share. The petitioner pleaded that the contention of the respondent No.1 in both the suits is that the suit schedule properties were acquired by the father late Atmakuri Prakasa Rao, from the earning of the ancestral property viz., the properties mentioned in O.S.No.249 of 2018 were purchased on his name under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.2002 and the properties mentioned in on pcu''.iOnf:; O.S.No.190 of 2018 were acquired with the joint family properties-coparcenary properties. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties by the petitioner’s father and subsequently a Registered Will dated 18.11.2016, was executed by him bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the petitioner and as such the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in both the suits. He further submits that the issues involved in both the suits viz., the nature of the suit schedule properties and the execution of the Will by late Prakasa Rao, are one and the same. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer petition against the respondents seeking to withdraw O.S.No.249 of 2018, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the XI11 Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 4. Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel representing Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondents. The material on record reveals that the respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.249 of 2018, on the file of I! Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioner herein for of the plaint schedule properties mentioned therein and also filed 5. possession 3 another suit in O.S.No.190 of 2018, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for partition of the plaint schedule properties therein and the same is made over to the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for disposal according to law. The contention taken by the petitioner herein is that he had filed the written statements in both the suits and his defense is one and the same that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties by his father Late Prakasa Rao and further he executed a Registered Will, dated 18.11.2017, bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of his son and as such the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the respective suits. 6. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the transfer of the Suit in O.S.No.249 of 2018 from the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to the same to the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and she would further contend that there is of action and there is no necessity to conduct joint no common cause trial and the reliefs sought in both the suits are different. 7. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent No.1 herein had filed suit against him seeking for relief of of the possession and the same is pending before the 11 recovery Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and the stage of the said case is that the chief affidavit of plaintiff has been filed and the matter is posted for Cross-examination, whereas the stage of the case in 4 O.S.No.190 of 2018, on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada is that the issues are not yet framed. In fact, both the suits are filed before the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada on the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2018 has been made Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for the disposal according but, later over to the XIII to law. 8. As seen from the material available on record, the defense taken by the petitioner herein in both the suits is one and the Therefore, in view of the pleadings taken by both the parties and also in view of the nature of the suit schedule properties same. I am of the considered view that if the suit in O.S.No.249 of 2018 from the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada is withdrawn and transferred to the Xlll Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, which is situated within the same Courts compound at Vijayawada no prejudice or inconvenience would be caused to the respondents. Furthermore, in O.S.No.190 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, the issues are not yet framed. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner herein claims that both the suits vide O.S.No.249 of 2018 and O.S.No.190 of 2018 have to be tried together for affective adjudication. It is well settled that “in an application filed for transfer of civil suit from one Court to another Court, it is not proper to direct the learned trial Judge to try both the suits jointly. In fact, it is for the trial Judge to decide whether both the suits have to be tried 5 together or separately, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both sides before the Court below." 10 On considering the submissions made by learned appearing for both sides and for the aforesaid petition is allowed and O.S.No.249 of 2018 counsel reasons, the present on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, shall transmit the case record in O.S.No.249 of 2018 to the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further it is left open to the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada decide whether the both the suits have to be tried jointly or separately after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both sides before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. to As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANTREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ //TRUE COPY// E To, 1. The II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada 2. The XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada 3. One CC to Sri A.Sai Rohit, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate 5. Two CD Copies Krishna District. Krishna District. [OPUC] BSV sree 'M HIGH COURT DATED:04/09/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 100 OF 2025 of X ieSEf2B25 % Current Section OesPATCV^-^ ALLOWING THE TR.CMP WITHOUT COSTS