APHC010180922024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 106/2024 Between: Yadla Someswara Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Smt Yadla Alias Routhu Jeevitha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam and transfer the same to the I Additional District Judge Court, Parvathipuram. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: I. The respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam against the petitioners herein seeking for partition of plaint schedule property and the petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the said suit. The petitioners pleaded that they have filed their written statements before the Court below by denying the material averments made in the plaint, but they have admitted their relationship with the respondent No.1 herein. One of the grounds urged by the petitioners for seeking the transfer of the civil suit is that the properties mentioned in the said suit are situated at Visakhapatnam and further none of the said properties are located at Palakonda. Another ground urged by the petitioners is that the defendant No.1 in the aforesaid suit is aged about 74 years and he is a retired man and that he cannot travel 100 Kms from Parvathipuram to Srikakulam for giving his evidence before the learned I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam, as such, the petitioners are constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam and transfer the same to the I Additional District Judge Court, Parvathipuram. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit by denying the material averments mentioned in the transfer petition filed by the petitioners herein. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that there are no valid grounds to allow the present transfer petition filed by the petitioners seeking transfer from the I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam to the I Additional District Judge Court, Parvathipuram and requested this Court to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. 4. Heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5. In a case of Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurucharan Singh Vs Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others1, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held as follows: “23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; “interest of justice” demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances, which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a “fair trial” in the Court 1 (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 659 from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order.” 6. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that one of the grounds urged by the petitioners for seeking transfer of O.S.No.17 of 2022 from the learned I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam, to the learned I Additional District Judge Court, Parvathipuram, is that none of the properties that are mentioned in the aforesaid suit are situated within the jurisdiction of Srikakulam District Court limits. But, as seen from the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.17 of 2022, which is enclosed by the petitioners herein to the present transfer petition, it is evident that the Item No.1 in the Plaint A Schedule (Immovable Property) is situated within the limits of Palakonda Nagar Panchayat, which comes under the jurisdiction of the learned I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam, wherein the suit for seeking partition of the plaint schedule property against the petitioners herein has been filed by the respondent No.1 herein. In view of the same, the learned I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam, is having jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the ground urged by the petitioners stating the learned I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam is not having the jurisdiction to try the aforesaid civil suit has no merits and the same cannot be considered. 7. Another ground urged by the petitioners herein for seeking the transfer of the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2022 is that the defendant No.1 therein is aged about 74 years and that he cannot travel 100 Kms from Parvathipuram to Srikakulam for giving his evidence before the learned I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam. However, it is not the case of the petitioners that the defendant No.1 therein is suffering from health issues and in order to prove the same, the petitioners have not adduced any documentary proof before this Court. Admittedly, “the appearance of the party in a civil suit is not at all required on each and every date of adjournment before the trial Court, unless and until his/her counsel is attending the Court proceedings on every date of adjournment. Further, the appearance of the party is required only on the date of giving his/her evidence before the trail Court”. Moreover, in O.S.No.17 of 2022, the trial has already been commenced before the Court below and stage of the case is pending for recording the cross-examination by the learned I Additional District Judge Court, Srikakulam. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners herein and as such the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 8. With the above observations, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 08.07.2025 SRT