APHC010395502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 268/2025 Between: Thummaluri Sreenivasulu ...PETITIONER AND Motakotti Narayana and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUDIGE BHOJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, to try along with O.S.No.47 of 2023. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 2023, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, against the respondent No.1 seeking for permanent injunction of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and the respondent No.1 had also filed his chief examination in the aforesaid suit. While so, the respondent No.1 in collusion with the other respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, seeking for specific performance of the suit. The petitioner further pleaded that the suit schedule property mentioned in the aforesaid two suits is one and the same and as such the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool to try along with O.S.No.47 of 2023. 3. The respondent No.1 had filed counter affidavit by denying the material allegations leveled against him in the transfer petition. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that there are no grounds to allow the request of the petitioner seeking to transfer the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024 from the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District to the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool and requested to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. 4. Heard Sri Budige Bhoja Raam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material available on record prima facie goes to show that petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 2023, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, against the respondent No.1 in the year 2023, seeking for permanent injunction of the suit schedule property and the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and the respondent No.1 had also filed his chief examination in the aforesaid suit. The respondent have filed a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale. 6. On a perusal of the material available on record, the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2023, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking for permanent injunction against the respondent No.1 in the year 2023 and the same is posted for cross- examination of D.W.1. On the other hand, the respondents had filed a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same is posted for cross- examination of P.W.1. 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, the subject matter and cause of action of both the civil suits are different from each other and furthermore, the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2023, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, which is alleged to have been connected to the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024 by the petitioner, is posted for cross-examination of D.W.1, i.e., at the fag-end of the case proceedings. 7. 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 1 (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 659 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 from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order.” 8. Necessity for transfer of suit from one Court to another would arise if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of the parties. When such a 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 the suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage either on the application by any party or suo moto. 9. As stated supra, since the subject matter and cause of action of both the civil suits are different from each other and the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2023, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, which is alleged to have been the connected to the suit to O.S.No.9 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District, is posted for cross-examination of D.W.1, i.e., at the fag-end of the case proceedings and as such the petitioner is cannot seek for transfer of suit in O.S.No.9 of 2024 from the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District to the VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 10. 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: 26.09.2025 SRT