Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 372 (AP)

Vankadaru Subba Rao v. Vankadaru Ramesh Babu

2008-06-13

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2008
ORDER This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23-7-2007 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, returning the Transfer O.P. filed by the petitioner by observing that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the transfer O.Ps. and directed to present before the proper Court. 2. The petitioner mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer O.P. that the respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against him and other respondents for partition of the suit property contending that it is a joint family property. The respondents 1 and 2 are not having any sort of right, interest or share in the property, as the suit schedule property is his self-acquired property. The respondents filed the suit to harass him and coerce him for a compromise. The respondents 1 and 2 and their mother, who is the wife of the petitioner, are living separately since a long time. After trial, the suit is posted to 13-2-2006 for judgment. While so, the suit was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama and is renumbered as O.S. No. 30 of 2006. The parties belong to Vijayawada and it was originally on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit property is also situated at Vijayawada. It will be convenient for both the parties to have a final disposal at Vijayawada Court. Therefore, it is just and convenient to transfer the suit from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama to the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 3. When the petition was returned, the present revision petition has been filed contending that the failure of the lower Court in entertaining the transfer O.P. is contrary to the settled principles of law and the lower Court failed to take into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the Court below ought not have observed that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the transfer O.P., therefore, the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside. 4. 4. Previously, Transfer O.P. No. 84 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner before the II Additional District Judge, Vijay'awada, seeking transfer of a.S.No. 572 of 1988 from the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, to any other Court alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for partition against the self-acquired property claiming share. It was further alleged that the learned Senior Civil Judge was all through interfering in the cross-examination by his counsel and did not allow him to proceed with further cross-examination by causing frequent interruption at every stage. The learned Senior Civil Judge has not conducted the trial impartially and during the arguments also there is interference by the Judge. The petitioner apprehends that he may not get the justice. Therefore, he filed the petition for transfer of the O.P. The respondents opposed the transfer. The learned Additional District Judge, after considering the merits, dismissed the application without costs through the order dated 22-2-2006, but subsequently the learned Senior Civil Judge himself wrote a letter to the District Judge requesting for transfer of the matter to any other Court, as there was no confidence to the petitione, on him. In pursuance of that, the suit was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Nandigama and the matter is coming up for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present petition requesting to retransfer the suit to the Court at Vijayawada on the ground that the then Presiding Officer of the said Court was transferred and it will be convenient for both parties to proceed with the arguments as the parties as well as the property are situated at Vijayawada. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the second respondent filed a memo mentioning that on behalf of the respondents written arguments were filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama in the month of July, 2007 and when the matter was coming up for arguments, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, sought for time and initiated proceedings for the transfer of the above case and obtained stay of the proceedings. The respondent herein is always ready to cooperate with the Court to proceed with the matter before the trial Court. The respondent herein is always ready to cooperate with the Court to proceed with the matter before the trial Court. The other suits viz., O.S. No. 29 of 2006, O.S. No. 31 of 2006 and O.S. No. 32 of 2006 were also clubbed with O.S. No. 30 of 2006, therefore, the transfer of O.S. No. 30 of 2006 is not desirable. Therefore, the tr8.nsfer petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The suit was transferred to Nandigama Court at the instance of the then Presiding Officer of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, therefore, all the suits were transferred to Nandigama Court and they are at the stage of arguments. Since the trial of the suit was over, there is no need for the parties to attend the said Court. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the suit is again transferred, it takes so much time and it will cause further delay in disposing of the matter. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are creating one obstacle or the other for disposal of the suit, therefore, it is essential to transfer the matter to the Court at Vijayawada for disposal according to law. 9. After taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that as the matter is coming up for arguments and if arguments are advanced there is likelihood of disposal of the matter at the earliest time. Since the then Presiding Officer, who recorded the evidence, was already transferred, it makes no difference whether the suit is disposed of by the Court at Vijayawada or at Nandigama. If the transfer is effected, it will take further time for disposal of the matter on account of the transfer of the bundles, renumbering, of the suits, issuing of notices to other side etc., In the light of the above circumstances, I am of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, if the, suit is disposed of at Nandigama Court. I do not find any ground to transfer the matter. 10. Hence, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.