Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 288 (AP)

Surapuneni Rani v. Surapuneni Latha

2004-03-10

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN all these transfer CMPs, the parties are common. Hence, they are disposed of through common order. ( 2 ) PETITIONER in Tr. C. M. P. Nos. 87, 89 and 90 of 2004 is M/s August Leo Granites private Limited. In Tr. C. M. P. No. 86 of 2004, one Smt. Surapuneni Rani is the petitioner. In all these matters, the various suits, referred to therein, are sought to be transferred to the court of IV Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam. ( 3 ) TR. C. M. P. No. 86 of 2004 is filed seeking transfer of O. S. No. 1756 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, visakhapatnam. This suit is filed for injunction in respect of office premises of the petitioner-company situated at visakhapatnam. Tr. C. M. P. No. 87 of 2004 is filed seeking transfer of O. S. No. 663 of 2003 on the file of the n Additional Junior Civil judge, Chittoor. This suit is said to have been filed seeking a permanent injunction, in respect of machinery belonging to the petitioner-company. Tr. C. M. P. No. 89 of 2004 is filed for transfer of O. S. No. 95 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam, srikakulam District, which is filed for a permanent injunction, in respect of a mine. Lastly, Tr. C. M. P. No. 90 of 2004 is filed with a prayer to transfer O. S. No. 664 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil judge, Chittoor. This suit is filed seeking permanent injunction, in respect of machinery of the petitioner-company. ( 4 ) PETITIONERS claim that they have filed a comprehensive suit, being O. S. No. 75 of 2003 in the Court of IV Additional District judge, Visakhapatnam, and it is appropriate that various suits, pending at different Courts, are transferred to the Court of IV Additional district Judge, Visakhapatnam, and tried along with O. S. No. 75 of 2003. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 6 ) THE petitioners seek transfer of as many as four suits pending at various courts in the State, to the Court of iv Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 6 ) THE petitioners seek transfer of as many as four suits pending at various courts in the State, to the Court of iv Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The reasons stated therefor is that a comprehensive suit is filed at Visakhapatnam, and transfer of these suits would avoid conflicting decisions. ( 7 ) NORMALLY, the proceedings are transferred from one Court to another, at the instance of defendants, mostly on the grounds of convenience or absence of territorial jurisdiction in the Courts, where the proceedings are instituted. It is in exceptional cases, that the proceedings are transferred at the instance of the plaintiffs/ petitioners on the grounds of convenience. It is the petitioners, who have chosen the respective Courts, having been convinced that the territorial jurisdiction vested in the respective Courts as regards the concerned subject-matter. The same state of affairs continues. The reliefs claimed in all the four suits are separate and independent of each other. The possibility of emergence of any conflicting decisions is too remote. ( 8 ) ONE of the grounds pleaded by the petitioners is that they have filed a comprehensive suit in the Court of IV additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Filing of a comprehensive suit and continuance of other suits, touching on various aspects of that very subject-matter, is almost a contradiction in terms. If the petitioners intend to get adjudication in a comprehensive suit, they have to take an appropriate decision, whether, or not, to continue the suits, which are pending as regards certain aspect of that comprehensive suit. There does not exist any justification to seek such suits to be transferred to another court, where the comprehensive suit is said to be pending. Further, several questions of territorial jurisdiction would arise. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Silver Granites v. Murugan, AIR 1995 Madras 217. Further, several questions of territorial jurisdiction would arise. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Silver Granites v. Murugan, AIR 1995 Madras 217. That case dealt with a matter arising out of Order 39, rule 3a C. P. C. , and an incidental order of transfer of one suit, which was ordered by the High Court itself, in exercise of the power under Section 24 of the C. P. C. Neither this Court doubts its power to order transfer of proceedings, in exercise of power under section 24 of C. P. C. , nor to the respondents put forward such contention. The question is about permissibility of such transfers. ( 10 ) IN view of the facts stated above, this Court is not convinced to order transfer of the suits referred to above. The Transfer c. M. Ps are accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to take such steps, as are necessary to avail a comprehensive relief, if they are so advised. No costs.