Kacham Naveen v. Kacham Rajendra Prasad,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Tr.C.M.P. NO.97 OF 2018 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 24 C.P.C to withdraw O.S.No.52 of 2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and transfer the same to IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to try along with O.S.No.944 of 2017.

Respondents 1,4,5, 6 & 8 reported no objection to withdraw O.S.No.52 of 2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and transfer the same to IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to try along with O.S.No.944 of 2017.

O.S.No.52 of 2018 is filed before Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for injunction simplicitor and O.S.No.944 of 2017 is filed for comprehensive relief of partition of the properties. The property and parties in both the suits are identical and one and the same.

In Dr.Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad Vs.

Pulletikurhti Varaha Chandra Bose and others1, this Court held as follows:

"Necessity for transfer of suits from one Court to another, would arise if only there exists any similarity of causes of action or commonality of parties. When such situation does not exist, the relief claimed for transfer of the suit, cannot be granted."

1 2004 (4) ALD page 719

MSM,J CRP.No.4629 of 2016 In Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others2, the Supreme Court held that, Section 24 CPC confers comprehensive power on the court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings "at any stage" either on an application by any party or suo motu. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. It is true that normally while making an order of transfer, the court may not enter into merits of the matter as it may affect the final outcome of the proceedings or cause prejudice to one or the other side. At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action. Powers under Section 24 CPC cannot be exercised ipse dixit in the manner in which it has been done.

It is further held by the Supreme Court that the following factors have to be taken into consideration in a situation in which it is duty of court to transfer the case:

(i) balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses;

(ii) convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit;

(iii) issues raised by the parties;

2 2008 (3) Supreme Court Cases Page 659

MSM,J CRP.No.4629 of 2016 (iv) reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending;

(v) important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation;

(vi) "interest of justice" demanding for transfer of case, etc.

The Apex Court observed that, the above guidelines are illustrative, but not substantive guidelines." By applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the above judgments, and in view of the no objection reported by the learned counsel for the respondent(s), the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed and O.S.No.52 of 2018 is withdrawn on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and transferred the same to IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to be tried along with O.S.No.944 of 2017.

In the result, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:12.03.2018 SP