Page1

In the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

Present: PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTHALAPUDI
Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

Monday on this the 28th day of February, 2022.

[Link]. 11 / 2020.

1. Malisetti Rama Subbaiah

2. Malisetti Chandramouli
3. Malisetti Uma Maheswari ….Petitioners
Vs.
1. Batta Ramya
2. Palla Sudha andand
….Respondents

This petition is coming on 24.02.2022 for final hearing before me

in the presence of Sri [Link], Advocate for the Petitioners and
Sri [Link], Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Respondent
No.2 remained exparte. Upon perusing the material papers available on
record, this Court passed the following :

ORDER

1. This petition is filed Under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code

1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C). The Petitioners No.1 to 3 sought
for is, to transfer [Link].56/2018 from the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge Court, Rayachoty to Senior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty to club
the same with [Link].104/2015 and conduct joint trail.

2. Notices to Respondent No.1 and 2 are served. Respondent No.2

remained exparte. Respondent No.1 Counter treated as No Counter.
But no representation through counsel.

Case of the Petitioners:

3. Petitioners 1 to 3 claimed this petition as the legal owners of the

Plaint Schedule Property. They acquired the schedule property from
their mother namely Annapurnamma who purchased the same under
Registered Sale Deed dated 06.06.1974 from Fathima Bee. The
Petitioners are as legal heirs of Annapurnamma are in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.
 Page2

4. The plaint land an extent of Ac.3.50 cents, out of which, Ac.0.79

cents in Survey Number 488/3 was acquired by the Government for
laying Government Roads. The land on acquiring by the Government
was sub divided into Survey No. 488/3B, 488/3B1, and 488/3B3 an
extent of Ac.0.79, Ac.0.12, and Ac.2.59 cents respectively. After
acquiring 0.79 cents, the balance extent under Survey No.488/3B1 and
488/3B3 belongs to the Petitioners. The filed [Link].104/2015 against
Madar Khan and Mohmmad Althaf for schedule properties 1 and 2.
While so, Respondent No.1 filed suit against Petitioners No.1 to 3 and
Respondent No.2 Palla Sudha vide [Link].56/2018 alleging that he is
the absolute owner and he sought Permanent Injunction against these
Petitioners.

5. It is asserted that the schedule properties in both suits are one

and the same. Issues are settled. Trial is not commenced. With the said
grounds, sought to withdraw [Link].56/2018 on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty and transfer the same to Senior
Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty to club the same with [Link].104/2015
and conduct joint trail.

6. As observed from the record, Respondent No.2 Palla Sudha

remained exparte. Batta Ramya Respondent No.1 represented through
counsel, did not file counter.

Submissions of the learned counsel for Petitioners :

7. In the course of hearing, Learned counsel for Petitioners

submitted that the schedule property is one and the same. Only issued
were settled Trial is not commenced. Senior Civil Judge Court is a
superior court compared to the Junior Civil Judge Court at Rayachoty
jurisdiction­wise. The subject matter in [Link].104/2015 and
56/20018 is one and the same. Parties are almost one and the same.
Pleadings are the same as to the subject matter is land in dispute.
Respondent No.1 reported no serious objections. Respondent No.1
reported that trial is not commenced in both the suits. Both Courts are
within the same Court complex. Reported no serious objections. Hence
sought to allow the Petition.
 Page3

Discussion:

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. In the light of plea of Petitioner to withdraw the suit and transfer

the same, the point that would arise for determination is :

Whether there are any grounds to withdraw

[Link].56/2018 from the file of Principal Junior
Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty and transfer the same
to Senior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty to club the
same with [Link].104/2015 and conduct joint
trail ?

Point :

Whether there are any grounds to withdraw

[Link].56/2018 from the file of Principal Junior
Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty and transfer the same
to Senior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty to club the
same with [Link].104/2015 and conduct joint
trail ?

10. The present petition is filed U/Sec. 24 of C.P.C. For better

appreciation the provision is re­produced herein under :

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 motion­without
such notice, the High Court or the District Court
may at any stage­
(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 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) re­transfer 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 sub­section (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
 Page4

re­try it or proceed from the point at which it was

transferred or withdrawn.
(3) For the purposes of this section,­
(a) courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall
be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court;
(b) "proceeding" indudes 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 the purposes of 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.

11. The provision provides scope for withdrawing and transferring

any suit or any proceedings or any Appeal within the jurisdiction of the
district unit. The said transfer can be done at any stage of the
proceedings even at execution stage also. This can be done either by
suomoto or representation of any of the party.

12. Petitioners 1 to 3 [Link] Subbaiah, [Link], [Link]

Maheswari have filed this petition for the above relief. As per the record,
they filed copies of plaint in [Link]. 104 of 2015 and [Link].56 of 2018
on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty and Prinicipal Junior
Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty respectively. On perusal of the plaint in
both suits (copies), [Link] Subbaiah, [Link],[Link]
Maheswari have filed the suit [Link].104 of 2015. These are Petitioners
No.1 to 3 herein. In the said suit, Patan Madhar Khan, Shaik
Mahammad Althaf, Batta Ramya(Respondent No.1 herein), Nallaballi
Bharathi, Dandu Pushpalatha, Maramreddy Venkata Ramana Reddy,
Maddirevula Sudharshan Reddy and Andhra Bank were added as
defendants. The schedule property in both the cases lies at Survey
No.488/3B,488/3B1, 488/3B3. One suit is for Permanent Injunction
i.e., [Link].104 of 2015, another one is for Declaring of Title and
Permanent Injunction i.e.,[Link].56 of 2018. One of the Respondents in
the present petition filed the suit for Injunction against the Petitioners
herein and both suits are Permanent Injunction.

13. Thus, subject matter and parties are almost one and the same.
 Page5

Further, both courts Senior Civil Judge and principal Junior Civil Judge
Courts are within the court complex of Rayachoty. Parties do not suffer
any discomfort. [Link].104 of 2015 is the oldest suit compared to
[Link].56 of 2018. Since there is no objection from the Respondents
and that both parties are almost one and the same. The subject matter
is one and the same. The relief is one and the same against each other. I
am of the view that senior court among the unit two is relevant Court for
proper adjudication, where the first suit [Link].104 of 2015 is filed.

14. For the reasons discussed in the interest of justice, I am inclined

to consider the present petition. Accordingly, point is answered.

15. In the result, the Petition is hereby allowed, withdrawing

[Link].56 of 2018 from the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Rayachoty and transferring the same to Senior Civil Judge,
Rayachoty and to try along with [Link].104 of 2015 . The Senior
Civil Judge, Rayachoty is requested to proceed matter as per due
procedure of law. In the circumstances, No costs.

Accordingly, petition is disposed off.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February,
2022.

Sd/­[Link] Kumar,
Principal District Judge,
Kadapa.

Copy to:

1. Sri [Link], Advocate for the Petitioners

2. Sri [Link], Advocate for the Respondent No.1
3. Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty
4. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty