M/S Abc Engineering Works, v. The Singareni Collieries Companies Limited,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY TR.CMP No.129 of 2015 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 24 C.P.C by the petitioner seeking to withdraw O.S.No.36 of 2010 from the file of the Additional District Court, Kothagudem and transfer the same to any competent Court at Hyderabad.

2 Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

The facts leading to filing of the present petition are, briefly, as follows:

4 The respondent herein filed O.S.No.36 of 2010 on the file of the District Court, Khammam for recovery of Rs.7,50,95,43575 ps. from the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement opposing the claim of the respondent.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the corporate office of the respondent is situated at Hyderabad and hence it is convenient for both parties if the matter is transferred t o Hyderabad. He further submitted that at present the suit is pending on the file of the Additional District Court, Kothagudem. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present petition is not maintainable under law. 7 A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the head office of the petitioner is situated at Vijayawada. It is not out of place to extract the relevant portion of the cause of action and territorial jurisdiction paragraphs as mentioned in the plaint, which reads as under:

"The facts constituting the cause of action arose on 12.07.2004 when the plaintiff issued NIT, and on 28.07.2004 the defendant submitted the tender, on 04.10.2004 when the Letter of Intent was issued, on 15.10.2004 when the work order No. KOC-62 was issued to the defendant, on 11.11.2005, 12.01.2006, 17.06.2006, 09.10.2006, 11.12.2006, 13.12.2006, 03.01.2007, 27.01.2007 and 28.04.2007 when the defendant was requested to improve the progress of the work but the defendant failed to achieve the targets, and on 04.06.2007 when the defendant sought extension of time but the same was not granted by plaintiff on 30.06.2007 and in the meanwhile from 17.6.2007 the defendant stopped the work without completing total work and left and thereby committed breach of the terms of work order / contract and the contract was broken and on 20.01.

2010 when the registered notice through the advocate of plaintiff was sent demanding payment of penalty, on 30.01.2010 when the defendant requested to give time up to 07.02.2010, on 12.03.2010 in continuation and modification of claim made in the earlier registered notice, another registered notice was sent demanding payment of penalty and on 28.03.2010 when the defendant requested one month time and in spite of the same, the defendant has failed to pay the amount and the same still continues. The cause of action for filing of the suit arose at Kothagudem, Khammam district within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." 8 A perusal of the above paragraph clearly demonstrates that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Additional District Court, Kothagudem.

It is not the case of the petitioner that the Additional District Court, Kothagudem has no pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The registered office of the respondent is situated at Kothagudem. No doubt, the corporate office of the respondent is situated at Hyderabad. Even as per the averments made in the plaint and the written statement, the head office of the petitioner is situated at Vijayawada. The petitioner executed the work contract with the respondent at Kothagudem, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Additional District Court, Kothagudem. Admittedly, no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the Courts at Hyderabad. A perusal of the counter clearly reveals that P.W.1 was examined on 21.11.2011.

respondent / plaintiff side further evidence. This clearly indicates that the trial was commenced in the suit. If the suit is transferred at this stage, it may cause inconvenience to the respondent and it may hamper the progress of the trial in the suit. The head office of the petitioner is not situated at Hyderabad. Merely because the corporate office of the respondent is situated at Hyderabad, that itself is not a valid ground for transfer of the suit from the Additional District Court, Kothagudem to Hyderabad. At this juncture, this court is placing reliance on the ratio laid down in Kulwinder Kaur Alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh V. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others[1] wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held at para No.23 as follows:

"Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc.

Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order.

9 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, I am of the considered view that there are no grounds much less valid grounds to transfer the suit from Additional District Court, Kothagudem to Hyderabad.

Accordingly, this Tr.CMP is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Tr.CMP, shall stand closed.

______________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

Date: 21st August, 2015.

Kvsn [1] (2008) 3 SCC 659