APHC010588682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3030/2025 Between: 1. TIRUMALAREDDY SIVA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. LATE T. CHINNA ACHHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 50-101-17, 1ST FLOOR, TPT COLONY, BEHIND SFS SCHOOL, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013 ...PETITIONER AND 1. RONGALI CHINNAM NAIDU, S/O. LATE RONGALI SANYASI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 50-99-21, TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013 2. RONGALI SRIDHAR, S/O. CHINNAM NAIDU, AGED ABOT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 50-99-21 TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013 3. RONGALI SRINIVAS, S/O. CHINNAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 50-99-21, TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dt. 13-08-2025, passed by the Principal District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam in Transfer OP No.5 of 2025 and to order to withdraw the AS No. 163 of 2022 on the file of I Add. Senior Civil Judge Court, at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same on the file of Principal District 2 Judge Court at Visakhapatnam to try the suit along with AS No. 163 of 2022 since the ll Add. District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam, is superior court for its appropriate adjudication 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 to stay of all further proceedings in AS No; 163 of 2022 on the file of II Add.District Judge Court, at Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A.PADMA VANDITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.246 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam against respondents herein for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property including eviction except by due process of law. 2. The case of the petitioner in the plaint inter alia was that originally the suit schedule property belonged to the 4th defendant therein and the petitioner (plaintiff) was inducted as tenant. The said 4th defendant is stated to have sold the property to the 2nd & 3rd defendants (the 2nd & 3rd respondents) under registered sale deed and the 1st defendant (the 1st respondent) was the care taker of the suit schedule property. On such transfer, the plaintiff became the tenant of the 2nd & 3rd defendants. Those defendants had no right to evict the plaintiff, he being the tenant, but those defendants were trying to interfere with the possession and to evict him. Plea was also taken that under a simple mortagage deed, the defendants had to pay some interest. 3. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court and challenging the decree, A.S.No.163 of 2022 was filed which is said to be pending in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 4. In the meantime, the plaintiff/petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.245 of 2022 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for decree against the same defendants for an amount of Rs.83,55,527/- with 4 subsequent interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit and in default of payment for the sale of the mortgaged property. 5. A fresh petition being T.O.P.No.5 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner, before the Principal District Judge, to transfer A.S.No.163 of 2022 from the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Viskhapatnam, to the Court of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, where O.S.No.245 of 2022 is pending. 6. The T.O.P.No.5 of 2025 has been rejected by order dated 13.08.2025, on the ground that the nature of both the matters is quite different. 7. From perusal of the plaint annexed to both the suits, this Court is also of the view that the nature of the suit as also the basis of the claim is different in both the suits. Consequently, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge, Viskhapatnam, in rejecting T.O.P. No.5 of 2025. 8. The impugned order, in the view of this Court, can also not be said to be a ‘case decided’ within the meaning of Section 115 of CPC. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 21st November, 2025 RKS