Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Katragadda Ravi Kumar vs Yenaganti Venkata Narayana on 6 December, 2019
Author: G.Shyam Prasad
Bench: G.Shyam Prasad
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3517 of 2018
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 11.4.2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in Transfer O.P.No.540 of 2017 and to allow the revision.
2. Heard Sri A.P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the notices have been served to the respondents and proof of service has been filed vide USR.No.47643/18. Hence, it is deemed that the notices have been served to the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have filed an application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908, (for short 'CPC') seeking to withdraw A.S.No.359 of 2011 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same on to the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for enquiry and disposal along with A.S.No.43 of 2015 and A.S.No.102 of 2015.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reasons mentioned in Para-9 of the Order of the learned trial Judge that the parties in all the three appeals might be one and the same, therefore, that was not the ground to transfer of all the three appeals to one Court, for the reason that the cause of action arose for filing O.S.875 of 2008 is different to that of cause of action arose in O.S.No.884 of 2008 and O.S.No.651 of 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the cause of action is different, all the three appeals are heard together, it would be 2 convenient for him to advance arguments in respect of the appeal in A.S.359 of 2011, which is pending on the file of Court of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
5. Admittedly, cause of action in all the three appeals is different. The learned trial Judge felt that it is not necessary to hear all the appeals together by one Judge and accordingly, the transfer petition was dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the parties might be one the same in all three appeals, the learned trial Judge opined that the same may not be a ground for considering the matter to be heard together. The only criteria for transfer of case under section 24 of CPC is that , if there is any common issue to be decided in all the three appeals, if pertaining to the same subject matter or if any evidence is recorded in all the three appeals together, it is appropriate to hear together. Admittedly, the cause of action in all the three appeals is different. No doubt, merely because the parties are same in all the three appeals, all the three appeals need not be heard to settle by a single Judge. The submission that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if all the three appeals are heard together, cannot be accepted in view of the different cause of action. Therefore, there is no plausible explanation from the counsel for the petitioners for hearing all these three appeals together.
6. When we look into the facts of the case, the 1st petitioner has filed O.S.No.884 of 2008 seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.651 of 2018 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking for 3 permanent injunction. The above suits are clubbed and common judgment was pronounced. Aggrieved by the same, A.S.No.43 of 2015 and A.S.No.102 of 2015 are preferred before the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The 1st petitioner also filed O.S.No.875 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.359 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
7. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks transfer of A.S.No.359 of 2011 from the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, wherein, the above two appeals ie., A.S.No.43 of 2015 and A.S.No.102 of 2015 are pending. He also relied on the Judgment in Chittivalasa Jute Mills Vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement1, wherein, it is held in Para-12 that "the evidence having been recorded, common arguments need be addressed followed by one common judgment. However, as the suits are two, the Court may, based on the common Judgment, draw two different decrees or one common decree to be placed on the record of the two suits. This is how the Trial Court at Visakhapatnam shall proceed consequent upon this order of transfer of suit from Rewa to the Court at Visakhapatnam".
In the instant case, evidence was not recorded commonly in all the three cases, the question of passing common Judgement does not arise and three separate Judgments are to be pronounced, as three separate appeals are preferred. Having 1 AIR 2004 SC 1687 4 considered the facts and circumstances of this case, the Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
8. The contention of the petitioner that though the cause of action in all the three appeals is different, some of the documents in A.S.No.359 of 2011 have to be considered in both the appeals i.e., A.S.No.43 of 2015 and A.S.No.102 of 2015, therefore, the petitioner seeks for transfer of A.S.359 of 2011.
9. In this regard of the petitioner intends to rely on the documents in A.S.359 of 2011, he may call for those documents, by filing a separate petition and the learned trial Court may pass appropriate order on appreciation in accordance with law. For the sake of advancing arguments, the appeal cannot be transferred from one Court to another Court, as the cause of action, in one of the appeal is different.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to consider the said contention for transfer of A.S.No.359 of 2011 from the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and to the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
______________________ G.SHYAM PRASAD, J Dated : 06.12.2019.
Note : Furnish CC on 11.12.2019.
B/o rpd 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD 6 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3517 of 2018 Dated : 06.12.2019 Note : Furnish CC on 11.12.2019.
B/o rpd