APHC010098482026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 58/2026 Between: Smt.parvataneni Prameela Rani ...PETITIONER AND Sava Sudhakar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.58 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.121 of 2025, on the file of the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada seeking partition of the suit schedule property, which was succeeded by the petitioner from his father Late Sava Gopal Rao. The petitioner pleaded that his father died intestate on 01.07.1990 and after service of notice in the aforesaid suit, the respondent No.2 herein filed the written statement admitting the said suit claim. The petitioner further pleaded that pending the suit for partition, the respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, seeking to cancel the settlement deed No.947 of 1992 dated 20.06.1992, before the Sub- Registrar, Bhimadole, which was said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner by his mother by name S. Kusuma Anjani Devi. The petitioner further pleaded that the claim in both the suits is with regard to the suit properties belonging to the petitioner’s father and the issues and evidence to be recorded in both the suits will also be the same. II. The petitioner pleaded that if the two suits are not heard together, there is likelihood of conflicting judgments on the same issues involved. The petitioner pleaded that he is aged about 69 years and is not in a position to travel between Tadepalligudem and Vijayawada and the respondent No.1 mischievously filed the suit without cause of action and also to cause hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025, is transferred from Tadepalligudem to Vijayawada, and heard along with O.S.No.121 of 2025, on the file of the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. The petitioner pleaded that the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025 was filed for seeking cancellation of the registered settlement deed dated 20.06.1992 and the parties in both the suits belong to the same family. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the pleadings, issues involved in both the suits are common and identical and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments and also to secure the ends of justice, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to transfer O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, to try along with O.S.No.121 of 2025, which is pending before the said Court. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit by denying the material averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that there are no grounds to allow the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition and requested to dismiss the transfer civil miscellaneous petition. 4. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5. The relief sought by the petitioner in the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition is to withdraw O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, to try the same along with O.S.No.121 of 2025, which is pending before the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025 is filed by the respondent No.1 alone against the petitioner herein seeking the relief of cancellation of the registered settlement deed dated 20.06.1992, which was registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Bhimadole. The subject matter of property in the said suit proceedings is situated within the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadepalligudem. Another suit in O.S.No.121 of 2025 is filed before the Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, by the petitioner herein seeking partition of the plaint schedule property therein against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. All the schedule properties in O.S.No.121 of 2025 are situated at Dubacherla and Vijayawada. The schedule property in O.S.No.574 of 2025 is not a subject matter of the property in O.S.No.121 of 2025. 6. The nature of both the suits, cause of action and the relief sought in both the suits are different and distinct. As noticed supra, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are not the parties to the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025. Therefore, there is no commonality of parites in both the suits. Whereas, in O.S.No.574 of 2025, the pleadings are not completed and the issues are also not settled. Moreover, the Court at Vijayawada has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in O.S.No.121 of 2025 and the nature of evidence sought to be produced is different in both the suits. 7. In a case of Reddys Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Pulletikurthi Varaha Chandra Bose 1, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “8. The necessity or occasion to transfer these suits from one Court to another would arise, if only, there exists any similarity of causes of action or commonality of parties. Such a situation does not exist in the present case. The relief claimed in the five suits referred to above is recovery of money on the basis of pronotes, whereas the relief claimed in the suit filed by the petitioner at Secunderabad, is for declaration touching upon the FDRs., standing in the names of the defendants therein. It may be true that the defendants in O.S. No. 88 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, incidentally figured as defendants in the other suits also. However, as long as the relief claimed in the suits is different, it is not at all permissible for transferring the suits”. 8. In the case at hand, the nature of both suits, cause of action and relief sought in both the suits are different and distinct. The subject matter of the 1 2004 Supreme (AP) 618 property in O.S.No.574 of 2025 is not included, in O.S.No.121 of 2025, which is now pending before the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. It is well settled that “parties convenience cannot be looked into in a transfer of civil suit from one Court to another Court”. The necessity for transfer of suits from one Court to another would arise if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of the parties, such situation does not exist in the present suit. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that it is not the fit case to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. 10. Resultantly, 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: 07.04.2026 SRT