APHC010687092022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 443/2022 Between: Pylore Ramana Madhuri Meenakshi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Puthucode S Sundaram ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri N.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners has represented that the notice sent to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein before the trial Court was served on him and to that extent a memo was also filed before the Registry and the same is place on the record. But, none appeared for the respondent. 2. The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer A.S.No.28 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to this Court to decide the case along with A.S.No.178 of 2010. 3. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: I. The respondent herein had filed a Suit in O.S.No.287 of 2005 against the petitioner and his family members, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking partition and allotment of 9/32nd share for the past profits of Rs.22,500/-. The petitioner further pleaded that his mother had also filed a Suit in O.S.No.1662 of 2007 against one Sri Late P.Sundaram seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the same schedule property, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge, by virtue of a Common Judgment dated 25.08.2009, allowed the suit in O.S.No.287 of 2005 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1662 of 2007. Challenging the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.287 of 2005, the petitioner had preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.178 of 2012, before this Court and further challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.1662 of 2007, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide A.s.No.28 of 2012, before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. As both the appeal suits i.e., A.S.No.178 of 2010, before this Court and A.S.No.28 of 2012, before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam are preferred against the Common Judgment dated 25.08.2009, passed by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to transfer A.S.No.28 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to this Court to decide the case along with A.S.No.178 of 2010. 4. Heard Sri N.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. Perused the Decree and Judgment dated 25.08.2009, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 6. The material on record Prima facie shows that the trial Court passed a Common Judgment in O.S.No.287 of 2005 and O.S.No1662 of 2007. As against the Judgment passed in 287 of 2005, an appeal was preferred which is pending before this Court vide A.S.No.178 of 2010, against the Judgment passed in O.S.No.1662 of 2007, another appeal is filed and the same is pending before II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam vide A.S.No.28 of 2012. Since the trial Court passed a Common Judgment in both the aforesaid suits, the A.S.No.28 of 2012 has to be heard along with A.S.No.178 of 2010 of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioners to transfer the A.S.No.28 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to this Court. 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and A.S.No.28 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to this Court. The II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in A.S.No.28 of 2012 to this Court, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 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: 07.02.2025 SRT