Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 630 (AP)

G. Ravinder v. Gowrisetty Surender

2003-04-24

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. L. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh sagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE Transfer CMP is filed to transfer O. S. No. 76 of 2001 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to any court of competent jurisdiction at hyderabad and pass such other suitable orders. Sri A. L. Raju, learned counsel representing the petitioner-defendant in the suit had taken me to the allegations made in the application filed in transfer CMP and had submitted that in a connected calendar case C. C. No. 175 of 1999 on the file of the additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, karimnagar, during the cross-examination, the respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit had clearly stated that the transaction of lending amount of Rs. 6 lakhs on 1-1-1998 had taken place at his own flat which is situated at Hyderguda, hyderabad. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the specific admission in the connected matter, it is clear that the transaction had taken place at hyderabad and not at Karimnagar and the court at Karimnagar has no jurisdiction. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner-defendant is afraid of attending the court at Karimnagar inasmuch as there is a threat to his life also. ( 3 ) PER contra, Sri Ramesh Sagar, representing the respondent-plaintiff had submitted that a stray admission made in a criminal case cannot be taken as ground for the purpose of praying for transfer of a civil proceeding. The learned counsel further submitted that the money was lent on the strength of promissory note which was executed by the petitioner-defendant on 1-1-1998 at Karimnagar. The agreement was executed by the petition-defendant on 29-5-1998 admitting the earlier transaction which took place on 1-1-1998 and the suit was filed on the original transaction but not on the subsequent transaction and hence, at any rate the other evidence or admission referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not have much relevance in the said context. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Limited. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Limited. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 5 ) THE petitioner-defendant in O. S. No. 70 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, karimnagar filed the present transfer CMP under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure code (hereinafter referred to as code in short) praying for transfer of O. S. No. 76 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, karimnagar to any competent court at hyderabad and pass such other suitable orders. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer CMP that the respondent-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of amount disclosing that the cause of action arose at Karimnagar and the same was pleaded in the plaint. It is further stated that the respondent-plaintiff in connection with the civil suit also had filed the criminal case against the self-same petitioner for the same transaction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1882 alleging that to discharge the liability of Rs. 6 lakhs the petitioner had issued the cheque. The said case was numbered as C. C. No. 175 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Karimnagar and the said case during the course of cross-examination, respondent stated that the transaction of lending an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs on 1-1-1998 had taken place at his own flat at Hyderguda at hyderabad. In view of the same, the court at Karimnagar has no jurisdiction to try the matter and the concerned court at hyderabad alone is having jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. Hence, the relief of transfer is prayed for. ( 6 ) THE respondent filed C. M. P. No. 7041 of 2003 to vacate the interim stay granted in cmp. No. 2911 of 2003 in the present tr. C. M. P. dated 7-2-2003 and in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was stated that the transaction had taken place and the money was lent and the promissory note was executed by the petitioner defendant on 1-1-1998 at karimnagar and the agreement was executed by the petitioner defendant on 29-5-1998 admitting the earlier transaction took place on 1-1-1998. It is further stated that the suit is laid on the original cause of action-dated 1-1-1998 but not on the subsequent agreement. It is further stated that the suit is laid on the original cause of action-dated 1-1-1998 but not on the subsequent agreement. Hence, the evidence given in the Criminal Case C. C. No. 179 of 1999 about the subsequent agreement on 29-5-1998 at Hyderabad has no relevancy for the purpose of jurisdiction and the suit is perfectly maintainable in the court of senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the suit is based on the original cause of action for recovery of amount and the pleading referred to the promissory note executed by the petitioner-defendant. At the outset, I may state that the second ground which had been argued with vehemence relating to the threat to his life, was not pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the tr. C. M. P. Hence, I am not inclined to consider the said ground. The first ground which had been seriously urged the admission made by the respondents- plaintiffs in a criminal case which will have a bearing on the aspect of jurisdiction, reliance was placed on Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd (1 supra) where the apex Court held that the parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on court not possessed by it under the Code, but agreement that one of the courts having such jurisdiction alone shall try dispute is not contrary to public policy and does not contravene Section 28 of the Indian contracts Act. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the contention raised by the petitioner-defendant is that in view of the admission made by the respondent-plaintiff in the connected criminal case, the court at Karimnagar has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pertinent to note that the relevancy of the judgment in Criminal Case in a Civil Proceeding itself is very limited, that being so, on the strength of the said admission alleged to have been made by the party in a criminal proceedings, I am definitely convinced that it cannot be a grpund to transfer the Civil proceeding form one court to another, especially, in the light of the specific allegations pleaded in the plaint relating to the cause of action. Hence, viewed from any angle, I don t see any ground to transfer o. S. No. 76 of 2001 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Karimnagar as prayed for by the petitioner-defendant to any other court at Hyderabad. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Tr. CMP is dismissed. No costs. The counsel representing the parties also make a request for early disposal of the matter since it is only a money suit. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Senior Civil judge, Karimnagar is hereby directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest point of time preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.