APHC010058322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 52/2025 Between: 1. UDEMALLA SUDHAKARA REDDY, S/O LATE U.RAMI REDDY, AGED 56, BUSINESS, H.NO. 28/848 TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 1. INJETI SANTHOSH REDDY, S/O SIVA KESAVA REDDY, AGED YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF H.NO. 2 BALAJI COMPLES, NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. 2. INJETI SIVA KESAVA REDDY, S/O LATE BALI REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF H.NO. 2 BALAJI COMPLES, NANDYAL TOW 3. GUNDAM VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O G.SAI RAMANA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O PULIMADDI VILLAGE, NANDYAL MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, withdraw suits filed by respondent O.S.No.195 of 2024, O.S.No.24 O.S.No.240 of 2024, O.S.No.681 of 2024, O.S.No.151 of 2024, O.S.No.175 of 2024 and suits filed by 2nd 2024, O.S.No.196 of 2024, O.S.No.1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 52/2025 UDEMALLA SUDHAKARA REDDY, S/O LATE U.RAMI REDDY, AGED 56, BUSINESS, H.NO. 28/848-H2-2, N.G.O. COLONY, NANDYALA TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND INJETI SANTHOSH REDDY, S/O SIVA KESAVA REDDY, AGED YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF H.NO. 2-428-149-A, MAIN ROAD, BALAJI COMPLES, NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. INJETI SIVA KESAVA REDDY, S/O LATE BALI REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF H.NO. 2-428-149-A, MAIN ROAD, BALAJI COMPLES, NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. GUNDAM VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O G.SAI RAMANA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O PULIMADDI VILLAGE, NANDYAL MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances ed in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw suits filed by respondent O.S.No.195 of 2024, O.S.No.24 O.S.No.240 of 2024, O.S.No.681 of 2024, O.S.No.151 of 2024, O.S.No.175 of nd respondent O.S.No.193 of 2024, O.S.No.1 2024, O.S.No.174 of 2024, O.S.No.295 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3606] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR UDEMALLA SUDHAKARA REDDY, S/O LATE U.RAMI REDDY, AGED 2, N.G.O. COLONY, NANDYALA ...PETITIONER INJETI SANTHOSH REDDY, S/O SIVA KESAVA REDDY, AGED 27 A, MAIN ROAD, INJETI SIVA KESAVA REDDY, S/O LATE BALI REDDY, AGED 55 A, MAIN ROAD, GUNDAM VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O G.SAI RAMANA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O PULIMADDI VILLAGE, NANDYAL ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances the High Court may be pleased to withdraw suits filed by respondent O.S.No.195 of 2024, O.S.No.24 of 2024, O.S.No.240 of 2024, O.S.No.681 of 2024, O.S.No.151 of 2024, O.S.No.175 of O.S.No.193 of 2024, O.S.No.194 of 2024, O.S.No.295 of 2022, 2 O.S.No.641 of 2024, O.S.No.645 of 2024, O.S.No.646 of 2024 and suit filed by 3rd respondent O.S.No.O.S.No.296 of 2022 which are pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal and transfer the same to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal as the case is pending in O.S.No.3 of 2022, O.S.No.5 of 2024, O.S.No.35 of 2024 and O.S.No.37 of 2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, and only one court has to decide all the suits, if above suits are decided by different courts, multiplicity of proceedings will arise and so all the above suits are interlinked and so should be disposed along with O.S.No. 3 of 2022 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in accordance with law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition 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 pleased to stay of suits O.S.No.5 of 2024 and O.S.No.35 of 2024 and O.S. No.37 of 2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, pending disposal of the main transfer petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUDIGE BHOJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 52/2025 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’). The petitioner by name Udemalla Sudhakara Reddy has filed this application seeking the relief as follows: “…..to withdraw suits filed by 1st respondent in O.S.Nos.195, 241, 240, 681, 151, 175 of 2024 and suits filed by 2nd Respondent in O.S.Nos.193, 194, 196, 174, 644, 645, 646 of 2024, O.S.No.295 of 2022; and another suit in O.S.No.296 of 2022 filed by 3rd Respondent which are pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nandyal and transfer the same to Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nandyal as the case is pending in O.S.No.3 of 2022, O.S.No.5 of 2024, O.S.No.35 of 2024 and O.S.No.37 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nandyal and only one court has to decide all the suits, if above suits are decided by different courts, multiplicity of proceedings will arise and so all the above suits are interlinked and so should be disposed along with O.S.No.3 of 2022 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nandyal in accordance with law”. 2. Notices to respondents 1 to 3 were served and the respondents 1 to 3 are represented through learned counsel. The petitioner filed this application by asserting that he filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 28.01.2019. While so, the respondent No.1 filed suits in O.S.No.5 of 2024, O.S.No.35 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal. The respondent No.1 filed O.S.Nos.195 of 2024, 241 of 2024, 240 of 2024, 681 of 2024, 151 of 2024, 175 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nandyal. Likewise the respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.37 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandyal. The respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.193 of 2024, 194 of 2024, 196 of 2024, 174 of 2024, 295 of 2022, 644 of 2024, 645 of 2024, 646 of 2024, on 4 the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal. The Respondent No.3 filed a suit in O.S.No.296 of 2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal. 3. The petitioner further asserts that the suits filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 which are pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nandyal, to be transferred to Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandyal, whereas O.S.No.3 of 2022, O.S.No.5 of 2024, O.S.No.35 of 2024, O.S.No.37 of 2024 filed by the petitioner and are currently pending and to be decided by one Court. It avoids multiplicity of proceedings as all cases are interlinked with O.S.No.3 of 2022 filed by the petitioner. Hence, he filed the present petition. 4. The respondents filed counter resisting the relief that no grounds are raised so as to consider the present application by invoking the powers under Section 24 CPC. The petitioner did not disclose any circumstances showing likelihood of failure of justice, prejudice, bias, or inconvenience to the parties' inability to obtain fair trial. The petitioner has made vague allegations without any bona fide reasons. The suits on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal filed by the respondents are basically on the premise of recovery of amount based on different promissory notes executed by the petitioner in favour of different plaintiffs. 5. O.S.No.3 of 2022 is filed for specific performance which is in different footing compared to the suits for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory notes. The nature of evidence, documents and reliefs in the respective suits are different. Numerous different suits filed by the plaintiffs with different cause of actions, and they cannot be tried together; as each suit is independent judicial proceedings. All the courts are within the same Civil District. The petitioner by-passing the remedy before the learned Principal District Judge’s Court, has approached this court by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 24 of CPC by this Court. There are no specific allegations as to 5 lack of jurisdiction or otherwise in the petition. As such, no transfer is required and the proceedings in the respective suits have transferred substantially. No legal necessity is there. Hence, the petitioner sought to dismiss the petition. Arguments: 5. In the course of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, he argued that all different suits are filed against the petitioner. If all the suits are tried together by one court, it would avoid multiplicity of litigations. There would be no harm to transfer. There would be no prejudice to the respondents. The matters are transferred and tried by one court. The objections of respondent that the petitioner has to approach the Principal District Judge’s Court, Kurnool initially, is not valid as the High Court and the Principal District Court have the concurrent jurisdiction. There is no bar to approach High Court under Section 24 of CPC. He relied on the ruling of this Court. Learned counsel, therefore sought to allow the petition as prayed for. 6. Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not stated any specific reason to transfer all the cases to one court. Different suits filed by different plaintiffs on the strength of promissory notes wherein the petitioner is the opposite party, does not mean that all the plaintiffs do get suffer. All the suits filed by different parties have its own cause of actions and reliefs. The petitioner ought to have approached the Principal District Court for any such relief. Without that, he approached this Court which is bypassing the authority of Principal District Court. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the rulings in the case of K.Naseeruddin v. D.Abhimanudu1 and Preeti Yohannan v. Abraham K. Mathen2 and sought to dismiss the petition. 1 2023 SCC OnLine AP 3692 2 2012 SC OnLine Ker 31654 6 Interim Order: 7. This Court while posting the matter for orders, has granted interim stay, staying all further proceedings in O.S.No.5 of 2024 and O.S.No.35 of 2024 and O.S.No.37 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil judge, Nandyal till the next date of hearing. 8. I have heard both learned counsels and gone through the record. Discussion:- 9. The facts do show that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.3 of 2022. Different suits have been filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the files of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal and Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal, respectively. Thus, two courts are situated at Nandyal that bars within the same court complex. 10. The petitioner in affidavit did not say any specific reason seeking for transfer. He did not refer the plaintiffs in the respective suits on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandyal and Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal, respectively. He only stated all these to be tried by the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), where the suit filed by him is pending. The suits filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner are in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, and are pending. The petitioner did not say the nature of those suits pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nandyal and Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal. The submission of learned counsel for respondents that the petitioner has not stated any reason to consider the transfer of all the suits and the said submission is convincing. 11. In the present case, all the suits are within the same Court complex with different reliefs by different plaintiffs. Merely, the petitioner is common in all 7 the suits, it does not mean that all the cases may be tried by one Court. There is no assertion of inconvenience to the parties or witnesses or exercise of jurisdiction by the respective courts without having any valid jurisdiction. There are no assertions that the petitioner rights are prejudiced. The petitioner's sole assertion that he is opposite party in the number of cases does not mean that one single court has to deal with all cases. The petitioner has to respond to the respective cases independently basing on the nature of the facts therein. In the other suits, plaintiffs have invoked jurisdiction of the respective Courts. Without any reasons, the opposite party-defendants cannot seek the change of forum and jurisdiction of Courts. The plaintiffs in their suits filed on individual basis, shall not be suffered to from the jurisdiction, which they already invoked on transferring to other Court. 12. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the Principal District Judge’s Court is the competent court to consider this application under Section 24 of CPC. It is evident that all the courts are within the same court complex which falls under the jurisdiction of administrative and judicial jurisdiction of Principal District Court at Kurnool. The petitioner has neither stated any reason for not approaching the concerned Principal District Court nor stated in the affidavit that he is invoking the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 CPC. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on ruling of this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.21 of 2022, dated 25.11.2022, wherein this Court has observed that the language in Section 24 of CPC that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the transfer civil miscellaneous petition, though the petitioner did not approach the learned Principal District Judge at Guntur. The High Court as well as the District Courts have concurrent power of jurisdiction insofar as transferring of civil cases from one Court to another supporting to those Courts. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has preferred the Principal District Court would be competent as all the cases are within its jurisdiction. 8 However, as the petitioner has approached this Court, this Court has taken the present application. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a Judgment in the case of K.Naseeruddin case (cited supra), wherein it is observed that though this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petitions filed under Section 24 of CPC, the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, who is having administrative control over the district is in a better position to decide the transfer petitions filed for transfer of the cases within the District. In the said case, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Principal District Court, Kurnool by filing appropriate petition. 15. The other objection of the respondents is that the common application is filed to transfer of bunch of cases filed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal from the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal. The petitioner ought to have filed different applications for each transfer of the suit. The respondents relied on Preeti Yohannan case (cited supra), wherein the High Court of Kerala Held as follows: “5. Instances are many where a consolidated petition for transfer is filed even though the parties are different in the proceedings merely because a few of them are common. Separate petitions for transfer of independent suit, appeal or proceeding is essential to adjudge the need set forth in the same. Different considerations prevail for transfer of independent proceedings even if they have a common nexus and the finding in one has a bearing in another. The contention that all procedure should be deemed to have been permitted unless prohibited inlhe High Court Rules, 1971 (Kerala) does not at all impress me. 6. The objection raised by the Registry is sustained. The Registry shall return the Transfer Petition (Civil) to the petitioner for representation after appropriate correction.” The petitioner therein has filed common application to transfer four different cases, such as O.P.No.630 of 2012, O.P.No.488 of 2012, 9 O.P.No.527 of 2012 and O.P.No.636 of 2012. The registry has returned the said application with objection that for each case, independent applications to be filed. The High Court of Kerala has upheld the objections. Without going into those merits as it is for the respective numbering but not on merits on hearing from both sides, I am of the view that, it differs to the present case. This Court finds in the present case, the petitioner has not pleaded any specific reasons to consider the present application as required for this Court to consider. 16. In the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the cardinal principle of law under Section 24 of CPC is to meet the ends of justice. When two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between same parties, which arise common question of fact and law with decisions are inter dependant. It is desirable that they should be tried together. 17. In the present case, the petitioner has not stated that all the cases have common question of fact and law. In fact, the petitioner has not stated that the parties are one and the same. It is the respondent, who stated that the parties are different as the pleadings in the suits are different. But the defendant is common. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish the conditions that are required to consider the present application, such as, common question of fact and law that is involved, any prejudice that would cause in dispensing with justice to try all the cases by one Court. 18. With the aforesaid discussion, this Court is unable to appreciate the contention of the petitioner to consider the relief without any specific reasons assigning to the parties, witnesses, jurisdiction, legal issues or competency of concerned courts. Therefore, with the above-said observation, this Court is of the view that when there are no valid sufficient reasons pleaded specifically to 3 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 10 consider such huge number of cases to be transferred, when all the cases are within one court complex, does not require consideration. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. Interim Order granted on 20.08.2026 is hereby vacated. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI, J Dated: 10.09.2026 VSR/ARR 11 193 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 52/2025 Dated: 10.09.2026 VSR/ARR