Neutral Citation: _______________ APHC010081042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3606] THURSDAY, THE 01st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.58 OF 2025 Between: 1. Burra Bhargav, S/o. Late Adinarayana Sastri, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Flat No.32, Visaka - A Colony, Srikakulam Town and District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Maradana Sridevi, W/o. Maradana Krishna Murthy, Aged about 53 years, Household duties, R/o.D.No.4-4-5, Punyapu Street, Srikakulam Town and District. 2. Gunda Raghupathi Naidu, S/o. Kondayya, Aged about 52 years, Business, R/o. D.No.2-26, Kistappapeta Village, Srikakulam Mandalam and District. ...Respondents Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased withdraw the O.S. No.32/2024 on the file of the II Additional District Court Srikakulam and to transfer the same to the Principal District Judge, Srikakulam to be tried along with E.A. No.377/24 in E.P. No.61/2022 in O.S. No.116/2018. 2 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No.61/2022 in O.S. No.116/2018 including confirmation of delivery on the file of the Principal District Court Srikakulam, pending disposal of the TRCMP. Counsel for the Petitioner : ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : P. VEERRAJU The Court made the following 3 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 ORDER: Burra Bhargav filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.'), seeking to withdraw O.S. No.32 of 2024 from the file of the II Additional District Court, Srikakulam, and transfer it to the file of the Principal District Court, Srikakulam, to be tried along with E.A. No.377 of 2024 in E.P. No.61 of 2022 in O.S. No.116 of 2018. 2. I have heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Veerraju, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Notice was served on respondent No.2, but no one appeared for respondent No.2. Factual Matrix: 3. Respondent No.1 filed O.S. No.116 of 2018 against respondent No.2, seeking recovery of money. The Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition E.P. No.61 of 2022 before the Principal District Court, Srikakulam, to execute the decree. The property scheduled under the E.P. was attached and sold at a court auction. Respondent No.1 became the highest bidder and participated with the Court's permission. The Court issued a sale certificate. The scheduled property was brought up for delivery. The petitioner then filed E.A. No.377 of 2024, claiming a right over the schedule property on the ground that respondent No.2 sold it to him in 2021. While these proceedings were pending, respondent No.2 instituted 4 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 O.S. No.32 of 2024 against respondent No.1 and the petitioner, seeking a declaration that the sale certificate affecting his property is null and void, and consequently seeking an injunction to prevent respondent No.1 from interfering with his property and against respondent No.2/the petitioner herein. 4. Due to two parallel proceedings involving the same schedule property and parties, the petitioner seeks to withdraw O.S. No.32 of 2024 from the II Additional District and Sessions Court and transfer it to the Principal District Court, Srikakulam, to be heard together with E.A. No.377 of 2024. Proceedings before this Court: 5. The Court ordered and served notice to the respondents. Only respondent No.1 appeared; respondent No.2 did not appear. Petitioners case: 6. The petitioner claims respondent No.1 sold him the scheduled property in 2021 under a valid sale deed, giving him ownership. He asserts that, for effective adjudication, both the suit and his claim petition should be tried together by one court, as they involve the same property and parties. Respondent No.1’s case: 7. Respondent No.1 argues the transfer petition is not maintainable. She contends she lawfully purchased the schedule property through court auction and received a sale certificate, and 5 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 that the petitioner’s and respondent No.2’s claims are not valid. She opposes the transfer of the suit, maintaining her right will be affected if the cases are clubbed. 8. The respondent No.2 & petitioner, in collusion, have got filed O.S. No.32 of 2024 through the respondent No.2, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, to declare the sale certificate issued for the scheduled property in O.S. No.116 of 2018 under the E.P. as null and void and liable to be ignored and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the schedule property of respondent No.2 and the petitioner herein. In the said case, she filed a written statement and contested it. The suit in O.S. No.32 of 2024 is not maintainable; as such, the present Application deserves to be dismissed. Arguments of both sides: 9. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the subject matter in both the proceedings is the same; if any order is passed in one case, that would affect the other proceedings. Therefore, one Court must decide both. In both the cases, the schedule property is the same, and the parties are the same. Hence, he sought to allow the Petition. 10. Sri P. Veerraju, learned counsel for respondent No.2, opposed the Petition on different grounds. He contended that fraud and collusion existed between the petitioner and respondent No.2, and that the claim petition was engineered in the E.P. as well as the Suit. The Suit in O.S. No.32 of 2024 was brought at the instance of 6 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 respondent No.2 to obstruct the right accrued to respondent No.1. The relief sought in the Suit is not maintainable, as it is illegal and unlawful. The present Petition is not maintainable, as the sale deed is dated 2021, after the attachment of the schedule property in the suit. The sale transaction allegedly between the petitioner and respondent No.2 in 2021 is not valid or legal. Accordingly, the said Suit is not maintainable. There will be no conflict of judgments or multiplicity of proceedings. 11. He further argued that the Principal District Court conducted the sale of the property of Respondent No.2, issued the sale certificate, and delivered the property to Respondent No.1. As such, the Suit in O.S. No.32 of 2024 is not maintainable. Learned counsel placed before this Court the document showing that the schedule property under the E.P. has been delivered to the respondent No.1. 12. He contends that the Suit in O.S. No.32 of 2024 and the present E.P. No.61 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional District Judge and the Principal District Judge at Srikakulam are of different schedules; they cannot be tried together. Unless the present Petition is dismissed, the respondent No.1 would not get the benefit of the decree. The claim petition filed by the Petitioner in E.A. No.377 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court is not maintainable under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. Both the E.A. and the Suit are malicious, and they cannot be maintained under the provisions of law. When they are not maintainable, there is no purpose to get the cases tried by one Court. Learned counsel has argued at length on the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. 7 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 13. Petitioner has the schedule property in E.A. He got the title under the sale from respondent No.2 in the year 2021. Respondent No.1 maliciously took out his property and got it auctioned. Respondent No.1 herself participated in the bid and was the auction purchaser. This shows her ill intent. The suit schedule property is in the E.P. pending on the file of the Principal District Court, and the schedule property under challenge, challenging the sale certificate itself in O.S. No.32 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, involves the same parties. The question of whether Order XXI Rule 97 CPC applies is for the Court to decide, but not in this Petition. Since both are in the same Court complex and the parties are the same, the subject matter is the same; one Court must deal with both, and hence the present Petition should be considered. 14. I have heard both learned counsels and perused the record. The point that arises for determination is: Whether the Suit in O.S. No.32 of 2024, pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, deserves to be transferred to Principal District Court, Srikakulam? Point: 15. The present Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC. For better appreciation, the provision is reproduced hereunder: “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal – (1) On the Application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage- 8 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such Suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) [For this section- (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.] (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for such Suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) [A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.] [Inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 10 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977)].” 16. The aforesaid provision says a suit or any proceedings can be withdrawn and transferred to any other competent Court. The proviso says that the Additional Judge and Assistant Judge are subordinate to the District Court. Proceedings include execution proceedings too. 9 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 17. In the present case, the relief is to withdraw suit O.S.No.32 of 2024 from the II Addl. District Court to the Principal District Court, where E.A. proceedings in E.P. in O.S. No.116 of 2018, the suit of respondent No.1, are pending. There is no dispute that the Principal District Court is competent to try. Both the cases are pending in the same court complex. The Additional District Court is subordinate to the Principal District Court. As such, the Principal District Court also has jurisdiction to take up the application under Section 24 of CPC. The parties have approached this Court, without taking recourse to the Principal District Court. 18. There is no dispute that, the Respondent No.1 has filed a suit O.S. No.116 of 2018 for recovery of amount, she succeeded, she moved E.P. for execution of decree, by attach and sale of respondent No.2 property, the sale was conducted, petitioner is the highest bidder, sale certificate is issued and ordered for delivery. Delivery was effected, but the petitioner contends it was only paper delivery; he is in possession and opposes the sale, claiming he is the owner of the schedule property, which was sold to respondent No.1 by the Principal District Court. 19. The proceedings before the District Court would show that the respondent No.2 has not challenged the decree in favour of respondent No.1; he did not challenge the E.P., and auction, and sale effected by Appeal. The decree is binding. Though respondent No.2 is a party to the proceedings in O.S. No.116 of 2018, it appears that he did not challenge them at any time. However, he filed a suit challenging the sale certificate, O.S. No.32 of 2024, 10 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 which is registered in an Additional District Court, though he is a party to all the proceedings and the sale is affected by the Principal District Court. It appears both E.A. No.377 of 2024 and O.S. No.32 of 2024 are instituted in the same year. 20. The petitioner and the respondent No.1, in these years, remained silent, and it appears they have not placed the facts before the Principal District Court about the pendency of a suit challenging the sale certificate before another Court. There is no plausible explanation for instituting a Suit challenging the sale certificate when respondent No.2 could have challenged it in the pending E.P. on the file of the District Court. 21. On perusal of the record, though the forums of the Courts are different, the subject matter involved is the property of respondent No.2. One is claiming right over the schedule property of respondent No.2 under sale by the Court and delivery of possession. Whereas, the other person, i.e., the Petitioner, claims the right over the schedule property of respondent No.2 under the sale done by respondent No.2 in his favour in the year 2021. 22. Coming to the parties in the Suit in O.S. No.32 of 2024 and E.A. No.377 of 2024, it is as follows: Proceedings Court Parties O.S. No.32/2024 II Addl. District Court, Srikakulam Gunda Raghupathi Naidu (plaintiff) and 1. Maradana Sridevi and 2. Burra Bhargav (Defendants) E.A. No.377/2024 Prl. District Court, Srikakulam Burra Bhargav (claim petitioner (3rd party) and 1. Maradana Sridevi (Respondent/Decree 11 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 Holder / Auction Purchaser and 2. Gunda Raghupathi Naidu (Respondent/Judgment Debtor 23. Coming to the relief in O.S. No.32 of 2024 and E.A. No.377 of 2024, it is as follows: ,Proceedings Court Relief O.S. No.32/2024 II Addl. District Court, Srikakulam The plaintiff therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the 1st defendant by : i) To declare that the sale certificate No.1 dated 18-08-2023 which was noted in records of Sub-Registrar Office, Srikakulam as document No.188/2023 dated 12-10-2023 issued to the 1st defendant is null and void and liable to be ignored deems to be cancelled as the sale proceedings held on 16-08-2023 made in E.P.61/2022 in O.S.16/2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Srikakulam are illegal, null, void and ab initio not binding on the plaintiff and 2nd defendant. (ii) Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, her men, agents, servants, supporters, followers, kith and kin from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant over the plaint schedule property. (iii) To send the copy of Sub-Registrar, Srikakulam to note the same in the records under Rule- 149 of Civil Rules of Practice; E.A. No.377/2024 Prl. District Court, Srikakulam The claim petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudicate the claim and pass order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondentsby declaring that the claim petitioner alone has got right, title, possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property by set-aside/quashing the sale and to cancel the sale certificate as the orders made in E.A.239/2024 in E.P.61/2022 in O.S.116/2018. 12 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 24. Coming to the schedule properties in the Suit in O.S. No.32 of 2024 and E.A. No.377 of 2024, it is as follows: Proceedings Court Schedule Properties O.S. No.32/2024 II Addl. District Court, Srikakulam Item No.1:Dry land to an extent of Ac.0-94 cents or 0-376 hectors or 4549.6 Sq. yards and construction made in an extent of 400 Sq. feet covered under Survey No.44/17 of Srikakulam District, Srikakulam Sub- Registrar, Gara Mandalam, AmpoluPanchayathi and Village; and Item No.2: Land to an extent of Ac.0.39 cents or 0-156 hectors or 1887.6 Sq. Yards out of total extent of Ac.078 cents in Survey No.44/18 of Srikakulam District, Srikakulam Sub-Registrar, Gara Mandalam, Ampolu Gram Panchayathi& Revenue village. E.A. No.377/2024 Prl. District Court, Srikakulam Item No.1: (i) Dry land to an extent of Ac.0-27½ cents or 0.110 hectors out of total extent of Ac.0-80½ cents under Survey No.44/17 and Katha No.3725 situated in Srikakulam District, Srikakulam Sub-Registrar, Gara Mandalam, AmpoluPanchayathi and village limits; (ii) Dry land to an extent of Ac.0-22 cents or 0.088 hectors covered under Survey No.44/18/1 and Katha No.3725 situated in Srikakulam District, Srikakulam Sub- Registrar, Gara Mandalam, AmpoluPanchayathi and village limits. (iii) Dry land to an extent of Ac.0-53 cents or 0.212 hectors out of total extent of Ac.0- 80½cents covered under Survey No.44/17 and Katha No.3725 situated in Srikakulam District, Srikakulam Sub-Registrar, Gara Mandalam, AmpoluPanchayathi and village limits. Item No.2: (i) Land to an extent of Ac.0-94 cents covered under Survey No.44/17 situated in Srikakulam District, Srikakulam Sub- Registrar, Gara Mandalam, Ampolu Gram 13 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 Panchayathi and Revenue Village limits; (ii) Land to an extent of Ac.0-39 cents covered under Survey No.44/18 situated in Srikakulam District, Srikakulam Sub- Registrar, Gara Mandalam, Ampolu Gram Panchayathi and Revenue Village limits. 25. A bare perusal of the relief(s), parties and schedule property show, similar. However, in O.S. No.116 of 2018, the petitioner herein was not a party; he came in E.A. No.377 of 2024, E.A. No.239 of 2024, and E.P. No.61 of 2022 in O.S. No.116 of 2018. No challenge has been made to the decree in O.S. No.116 of 2018. In E.A., when the decree is under execution, the parties have become the same. Therefore, though the Suit of respondent No.1 concerns respondents No.1 & 2, the parties have come in the realisation of the decree, and respondent No.2 filed a suit challenging the sale. 26. The contention of respondent No.1 is that the suit O.S. No.32 of 2024 is not maintainable, as a challenge to the sale by separate suit when he is a party to the suit is not maintainable. Many arguments are on this aspect, challenging that this Court shall not consider the O.S. No.32 of 2024 as it is collusive, barred by law, etc. 27. I am unable to appreciate the said arguments in this Petition. Respondent No.1 claims she filed a written statement in O.S. No.32 of 2024 and is contesting. But there is no assertion that she challenged the maintainability of the suit itself before the Addl. District Court, especially since she appeared in the said Suit. Now, agitating at this Court that the suit is not maintainable, I am of the considered view that the argument does not sustain. Under Section 14 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 24 of CPC, this Court cannot decide the maintainability of the suit. It is not a forum of Appeal over the Addl. District Court under Section 24 of CPC. Respondent No.1 has all legal recourse to challenge the suit only before the said Court. Section 24 of the CPC is a forum provision, not a court of adjudication, and does not decide whether proceedings before subordinate courts are valid. It is a provision to decide the forum of convenience for the witnesses, subject matter, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, respondent No.1's contention on the maintainability of the suit O.S. No.32 of 2024 is not acceptable. 28. The schedule properties would show there is a slight variation of the boundaries for Item Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 argues that the properties in both proceedings are different. However, though it appears so on the face of it, the fact remains that, in the entire extent, respondent No.2 allegedly sold some land in favour of the Petitioner. Though the entire extent of the properties is not the same, the survey numbers and parties are the same. In the Suit instituted by the respondent No.1 against respondent No.2, the parties are different. 29. The allegation and contention of respondent No.1 is that E.A. No.377 of 2024 as well as the Suit in O.S. No.32 of 2024 have been initiated under fraud and collusion between R-2 and the Petitioner. Under Section 24 of the CPC, this Court cannot decide the merits of the case. The concerned courts must adjudicate on the merits based on the evidence and facts. Under Section 24 of the CPC, the limited scope is to provide convenience to the parties and avoid 15 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 multiplicity of proceedings. A suit or proceedings, including execution proceedings, can be withdrawn and transferred to another forum so that one competent Court can decide the subject matter and parties involved. Section 24 of the CPC only provides a forum for common proceedings between two different legally instituted proceedings. It does not cure or answer the legality of the proceedings or the validity of their institution. 30. Learned counsel for R-1 has argued on Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The provision is extracted hereunder: “97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property - (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. (2) Where any application is made under sub- rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the Application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.] [Substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 72 for sub. rule (2) (w.e.f. 1.2.1977).]" 31. Learned counsel argues that, when the provision is there, a separate suit is not maintainable. He further argues that delivery of possession to the decree holder can be resisted, but not the sale. Thus, E.A.377 of 2024 is also not maintainable. This Court refrains from answering this, as this is not an appellate forum. The parties can agitate before the trial Courts. Respondent No.1 is requesting this Court to decide the issue of maintainability of the proceedings. 16 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 The said objections as to maintainability, the respondent No.1 or the parties to the proceedings are at liberty to raise the same, as the scope under Section 24 CPC is limited only to the extent of forum convenience and forum where the litigation jointly can be adjudicated, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, in Kushro S. Gandhi and others v. N.A. Gajdar and others[1], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Section 24 of CPC inter-alia provides that High Court may withdraw any Suit, Appeal or other proceeding, pending in any Court, subordinate to it and try and dispose of the same. The High Court has tried an issue arising in a suit in a revision. It seems to this Court that the High Court, even if the parties conceded, had no power to decide the issue. 32. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 in this case argued that this Court shall decide the maintainability of E.A. No.377 of 2024 and O.S. No.32 of 2024. This Court finds that respondent No.1 has already taken her stand by way of her counter and written statement. In such a case, the trial Court would frame the necessary points for determination and issues, and then adjudicate. Under Section 24 of CPC, deciding an issue of maintainability and legality of the proceedings is not a question to be decided. Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the vehement arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the maintainability of the suit and the E.A. cannot be answered under Section 24 of the CPC. The concerned trial Court is competent to decide the issue based on the pleadings and contentions. 17 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 33. In these proceedings, the petitioner has not sought transfer of E.A. No.377 of 2024, but has sought transfer of O.S. No.32 of 2024, in which he is a party, and to the place of the Court where he instituted E.A. No.377 of 2024, i.e., before the Principal District Court. If, for a moment, Order XXI Rule 97 CPC applies to E.A. No.377 of 2024, this Court cannot answer the maintainability of E.A. No.377 of 2024, as that E.A. was not sought to be transferred. Respondent No.1 did not challenge E.A. No.377 of 2024 at the initial stage. Respondent No.1 has filed a counter in E.A. No.377 of 2024 and is contesting there. Therefore, the learned counsel's contention that E.A. No.377 of 2024 is hit by Order XXI Rule 97 is not applicable before this Court and is not amenable. 34. Coming to the Suit O.S. No.32 of 2024, instituted by R-2 against R-1 and petitioner, he filed the Suit for cancellation of sale effected by the execution by the Principal District Court, Srikakulam, under the execution proceedings against R-2. On the maintainability of the Suit, this Court finds that it cannot be answered under Section 24 of the CPC. In the present Petition, she has specifically stated at Para Nos.5 and 6 that E.A. No.377 of 2024 is coming up for enquiry. In fact, at Para No.8 she states that she filed her written statement seriously opposing the same. However, she nowhere stated that she filed any application to reject the said case on the grounds of maintainability. Thus, her contentions are contrary to the defence and proceedings initiated by her in respect of E.A. No.377 of 2024 in O.S. No.116 of 2018. 18 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 35. For forum convenience, both cases are in the same court complex and within competent jurisdiction. Since the sale certificate was issued by the Principal District Court and is the focus of both proceedings, it is convenient for the Principal District Court to adjudicate all related matters together. 36. The Principal District Court, as the issuing authority of the sale certificate, is the proper forum to adjudicate all related disputes. Transferring the suit there does not affect jurisdiction, and consolidating the matters avoids conflicting decisions and repeated evidence on the same issues. 37. Therefore, the Principal District Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate both proceedings. Questions of maintainability and other objections may be raised before that court, which is seized of the matter. 38. The subject matter, apart from the schedule property in O.S. No.32 of 2024, is the sale certificate itself, which the Principal District Court, Srikakulam, issued. It is relevant that one Court try both the cases. Otherwise, there would be conflict of proceedings or orders. It may be true that in O.S. No.32 of 2024, the trial has yet to commence, whereas in E.A. No.377 of 2024, the proceedings may be at a different stage than in the suit. But that does not mean the Courts would allow different orders, or multiplicity of proceedings that would make the parties lead evidence multiple times on the subject of the sale certificate. Since the parties in E.A. No.377 of 2024 and O.S. No.32 of 2024 are the same, and the proviso to 19 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 Section 24 CPC contemplates that any proceedings, at any stage, can be withdrawn and transferred to the competent Court, without jurisdiction or with jurisdiction, from the transferring Court. 39. In Nirmala Devi v. Arun Kumar Gupta[2], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that transfer and joint disposal of suits are warranted when they will directly impact related suits. In such cases, the transfer of the suits is permissible. In the present case, the subject matter of O.S. No.32 of 2024, which is sought to be transferred, and E.A. No.377 of 2024, which is pending in the transferee Court, both relate to the sale of the schedule property and indirectly challenge the sale certificate. Therefore, if one suit or application is decided, it will affect the decision of the other Suit or proceedings. Conclusion: 40. With the above reasons, the point is answered that, the subject matter of sale is under challenge in E.A. No.377 of 2024 and O.S. No.32 of 2024 and the sale certificate issued by the Principal District Court is under challenge; it is the Principal District Court, which is the proper forum to adjudicate. Hence, I am of the view that the present Petition is liable to be considered that the suit O.S. No.32 of 2024 be withdrawn from the II Addl. District Court, Srikakulam and transferred to the Principal District Court, Srikakulam. Result: 41. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed with the following directions: 20 PKC,J Tr.C.M.P.No.58/2025 (i) O.S. No.32 of 2024 is withdrawn from the file of II Additional District Court, Srikakulam, and transferred to the file of Principal District Court, Srikakulam: (ii) The learned II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, is directed to transmit the entire record in O.S. No.32 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Principal District Court, Srikakulam; and (iii) Upon receipt of the same, the Principal District Court, Srikakulam shall proceed as per due procedure of law. The Principal District Court, Srikakulam, is at liberty to take appropriate steps to club E.A. No.377 of 2024 or O.S. No.32 of 2024, including the maintainability of both proceedings, without prejudice to the findings of this Court No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed. ___________________________________________ JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI Date:01.10.2026 DSH Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned √ Reportable Non-Reportable √