APHC010415142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the twenty sixth The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: Between: S.Praveena S.Sreenivasa Reddy and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Panguluru Rachana Counsel for the respondent 1. Ineni Venkata Prasad The Court made the following IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) day of December two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 3499 of 2025 ...Petitioner and Sreenivasa Reddy and others ...Respondent etitioner: Panguluru Rachana espondents: Venkata Prasad The Court made the following [3311] two thousand and twenty five Petitioner Respondents 2 C.R.P.No.3499 of 2025 O R D E R: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.11.2025 allowing the petition in Tr.O.P.No.43 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ananthapuramu filed by the respondent No.1 herein to transfer the suit in O.S.No.193 of 2014 from the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda to try along with the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2016. 2. Initially, the suit in O.S.No.193 of 2014 was decreed ex parte. Later, the defendant No.8 therein filed interlocutory application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was allowed. Thereafter, he filed the transfer petition. 3. O.S.No.193 of 2014 was filed originally against 9 defendants (thereafter, defendants Nos.10 to 12 were added in the year 2024) seeking partition of lands of Ac.26.35 cents in S.Nos.111, 112, 114 and 126 of Chilamathur village. Later, the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2016 was filed by Smt.S.Geetha who is the 7th defendant in O.S.No.193 of 2014 initially against 9 defendants and subsequently 2 defendants, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.193 of 2014 by name S.Sreenivasa Reddy and P.V.Sivamma, were impleaded in the year 2019. O.S.No.38 of 2016 was also filed for partition of as many as 15 items of property, out of which Sl.Nos.1 to 4 correspond to the four items of property shown in the schedule of properties in O.S.No.193 of 2014. 4. Under these circumstances, inspite of resistance offered to the transfer petition, it was allowed by the District Court. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition was filed only to delay the proceedings and the District Court failed to consider the intention behind filing the petition under the above stated 3 C.R.P.No.3499 of 2025 circumstances. He further submitted that instead of transferring the old suit, the District Court ought to have transferred the subsequently filed suit to the Court where the first suit is pending. He further submitted that though the revision petitioner opposed the transfer in the counter itself, that if Court comes to the conclusion to transfer the suit, but, the second suit may be transferred to the Court where the first suit is pending, but, without considering the same and also not assigning any reason, the petition was allowed. Therefore, he submitted that even if the order is confirmed by this Court, the above change may be ordered. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the District Court had rightly passed the order as the later suit is comprehensive one containing not only the schedule properties in the previous suit, but, also additional properties. 8. The respondents Nos.2 to 16 are shown as not necessary parties. 9. As can be seen from the contentions of both the sides in the facts and circumstances in the present case, it is just and necessary to have trial in both the suits together to avoid conflict in decisions. In a transfer petition what is to be examined is whether there is necessity to have both suits tried together. It is not a case where any party asked for a common trial. Even in such a case, it is for the trial Court to take a decision on such aspect. It is also represented that the trial in O.S.No.38 of 2016 is coming for continuation of evidence of defendants, whereas, the evidence in O.S.No.193 of 2014 is at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1. 10. Though the respondent filed counter objecting transfer of the later suit, instead of the former suit, the District Court has not at all considered and given its opinion as to which suit should be transferred. The suit in O.S.No.193 of 2014 being first in point of time filed, the later suit ought to have been transferred from Penukonda to Hindupur, though there are other properties, because the position would be the same as to deal with properties located outside the jurisdiction of Court in transfer of either suit, 4 C.R.P.No.3499 of 2025 irrespective of number of such properties. As such, the revision is allowed. 11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 11.11.2025 in Tr. O.P.No.43 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ananthapuramu is confirmed to the extent of allowing the petition, while modifying the order to transfer O.S.No.38 of 2016 from the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur where O.S.No.193 of 2014 is pending, instead of vice versa. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.26.12.2025 PNV