APHC010475422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 423/2024 Between: Adigarla Ratna Kumari ...PETITIONER AND Bandaru Ramu ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G R SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T V SRI DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer the suit vide O.S.No.30 of 2021,on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Anakapalle. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.30 of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam, against the petitioner seeking for recovery of suit amount with interest. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed I.P.No.06 of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, on the ground that she has got threat from her creditors; she is a landlady and had no means for engaging an advocate for prosecuting the case at Narasipatnam. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed T.O.P.No.58 of 2023, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking transfer of the said O.S.No.30 of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Anakapalle, where the I.P.No.06 of 2021 is pending for adjudication. But the trial Court had dismissed the Transfer O.P. filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to transfer the suit vide O.S.No.30 of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Anakapalle. 3. The respondent had filed a counter affidavit by denying the material averments mentioned in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are no valid grounds to allow the present transfer petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of O.S.No.30 of 2021 from the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam to the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Anakapalle and requested this Court to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. 4. Heard Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent herein had filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.30 of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam, against the petitioner for recovery of suit amount and the petitioner had filed I.P.No.06 of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, showing the respondent herein as the respondent No.3 therein. 6. The law is well settled that “Necessity for transfer of suits from one Court to another would arise if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of the parties. When such situation does not exist, the relief claimed for the transfer of suit cannot be granted. Section 24 of CPC confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage either on the application by any party or suo motu. Although discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straight jacket of any cast, iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gain said that the power of transfer of the case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection”. 7. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the proceedings in O.S.No.30 of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam, are quite different from the proceedings in I.P.No.06 of 2021, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, which was instituted by the petitioner. Initially, the respondent herein had instituted the aforesaid civil suit seeking for recovery of the suit amount with interest based on the promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner herein and the cause of action in the said suit had aroused only at Narasipatnam, which is pending within the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Narasipatnam. Further, the main contention of the petitioner herein is that, she got threat from her creditors and she is a woman, which constrained the petitioner to file the present transfer petition. 8. The law is clear that “mere threat is not a ground for seeking transfer of a Civil Suit from one place to another place”. 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, no prima facie evidence had been adduced by the petitioner, in order to prove the alleged threat from her creditors. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner herein and as such the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 9. 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: 18.07.2025 SRT