Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, A ... vs Pulletikurthi Varaha Chandra Bose, S/O ... on 30 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)ALD719, 2004(5)ALT209
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These five Tr.C.M.Ps. arise under similar circumstances though with slight differences as to facts. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.
2. These Tr.C.M.Ps. are filed seeking transfer of O.S.Nos.240, 244 and 245 of 2003 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, O.S. No. 242 of 2003 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry and O.S. No. 186 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. Three suits on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, were filed by one V. Hanumantha Rao against two defendants therein for recovery of certain amounts. O.S. No. 244 of 2003 is filed by one P. Varaha Chandra Bose and O.S. No. 186 of 2003 is filed by one V. Satyanarayana for recovery of certain amounts against the respective defendants. In all the suits, the respective plaintiffs filed applications under Order 38 CPC and obtained orders of 'attachment before judgment' in relation to certain fixed deposits in the post offices standing in the names of respective defendants.
3. The petitioner is a third party to all the suits. It is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It is its case that one Yedida Srinivasa Rao, arrayed as one of the respondents in all the Tr.C.M.Ps., was employed by it as Executive (Legal) and was in service up to 2003. It is stated that during his tenure, Mr. Y. Srinivasa Rao fabricated several fictitious bills for payment of advocate fees and advertising charges up to the tune of Rs. 1.68 crores. The petitioner claimed to have submitted a complaint with the police, P.S., Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, and a case was registered by the Central Crime Station. During the course of investigation, Mr. Y. Srinivasa Rao is said to have confessed that he has misappropriated the alleged amounts and has in fact refunded a sum of Rs. 95 lakhs. Further, the case of the petitioner is that Mr. Y. Srinivasa Rao accepted that he has deposited part of the amount in post offices at Secunderabad in the names of his relatives, who are defendants in the five suits referred to above, and that the FDRs were recovered from him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 88 of 2003 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for declaration that it is entitled to a sum of Rs. 60,62,000/- standing in the names of defendants 1 to 9 therein and for recovery of that amount.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the adjudication upon its entitlement to realize the amount covered by the FDRs, is pending before the Court of I Additional Chief Jude, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, Mr. Y. Srinivasa Rao got the five suits referred to above filed with a view to secure orders of attachment either before judgment, or after decree against those very FDRs. Steps taken by the petitioner to get the attachments raised are said to have not been successful.
5. Sri B. NalinKumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the five suits referred to above were got filed by Mr. Y. Srinivasa Rao only, as an attempt to make the amount covered by the FDRs., in respect of respective defendants, not available to be dealt with in O.S. No. 88 of 2003 filed by the petitioner. He contends that if the various Courts, where the five suits referred to above are pending, are permitted to adjudicate upon the encashment of the FDRs., there is every likelihood of emergence of conflicting judgments. He submits that since a comprehensive suit is pending at City Civil Court, Secunderabad, it is in the interest of every body that the remaining five suits to be transferred to that Court.
6. Sri M. Giri, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the suits referred to above, on the other hand, submits that neither the petitioner herein nor Mr. Y. Srinivasa Rao are parties to the suits and in that view of the matter, the question of transferring the same does not arise. He also contends that the subject matter of the suits, which are sought to be transferred, is the respective pronotes and not the FDRs., as such.
7. The necessity for the petitioner to file these Tr.C.M.Ps. arose, on account of the fact that the various FDRs., in the names of the defendants in the respective suits, were attached before judgment under Order 38 CPC. The petitioner specifically contends that during the course of investigation, their farmer employee Mr. Y. Srinivasa Rao has confessed that part of the money misappropriated by him was invested as FDRs., in various post offices at Secunderabad in the names of several persons, including the defendants in the five suits referred to above.
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.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the FDRs., which are the subject matter of the suit pending at Secunderabad, are dealt with the other five suits, the suit itself may become infructuous either in its entirety, or in part. In this regard, it needs to be observed that the question of the Courts, where the said five suits are pending, proceeding with the FDRs., would arise, if only, the suits are decreed and in the execution proceedings the decree holders are left with no alternative except to proceed against the FDRs. The fact that the same FDRs., were attached before judgment under Order 38 CPC, can hardly be a matter of concern for the petitioner, since attachment before judgment, by itself does not result in encashment of FDRs. The interest of the petitioner can be very well protected by ensuring that the FDRs., are not proceeded against, till the disposal of the suit filed by it. Such a course of action, in fact, would not be detrimental to the interests of the plaintiffs in the five suits also. In the event of their suits being decreed, they can recover the amount in any manner by proceeding against the properties or persons of the judgment debtors therein other than FDRs.
10. In that view of the matter, Tr.C.M.Ps. are disposed of with the following directions:
a) The respective Courts in which the five suits referred to above are pending may proceed to adjudicate the same;
b) In the event of the suits being decreed, it shall be open to the decree holders to recover the decretal amount by proceeding against the properties or persons of the judgment debtors therein, except the FDRs., taken out in the post offices at Secunderabad and Hyderabad; and
c) The question as to whether the eventual decrees can be proceeded against the said FDRs would be considered only after O.S. No. 88 of 2003 pending in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is disposed of, depending on its result.