Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 415 (AP)

Putta Rama Krishna v. Bikkina Ramatulasi

2024-04-02

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 105 of 2022 on the file of V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, challenging the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Transfer O.P. No. 120 of 2023 by the Court of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, rejecting the petitioner’s transfer petition. 3. The petitioner filed application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the suit O.S. No. 105 of 2022 from the Court of V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram and transfer the same to the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram or to any Additional District Courts at Kakinada. 4. The application was filed inter-alia submitting that the petitioner is an old aged person and is permanent resident of Kakinada. The properties in plaint-A & B schedule are situated at different areas and major portion of landed properties are situated at Surampalem village which comes under the jurisdiction of the VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram. It was also pleaded that the respondent was resident of Razole and the distance between Razole to Peddapuram and Rajahmundry will be the same. It was further submitted that the respondent was presently residing at Hyderabad and the distance from Hyderbad to Rajahmundry or Peddapuram will be the same. So, no prejudice would be caused if the suit is transferred to Peddapuram or to Kakinada. 5. The respondent filed objections inter-alia submitting that the plaint-A schedule properties are located within the jurisdiction of Rajamahendravaram Court and only Item-1 in plaint-B schedule property will come under the purview of the jurisdiction of Peddapuram Court. The petitioner’s allegation that the major portion of the plaint schedule properties being located at Surampalem village was denied. Further objection was taken that if the suit was transferred to Peddapuram which is about a distance of 20 kilometers from Kakinada where the petitioner resides, the respondent would suffer irreparably as the Court at Peddapuram is located at a distance of about 100 kilometers from Tatipaka, the place of residence of the respondent, then it would be very inconvenient for the respondent and there would be every chance for threatening the respondent. The respondent also submitted that she is aged about 62 years and was suffering from ailments. The respondent is permanent resident of Tatipaka whereas the petitioner is resident of Kakinada. 6. The Principal District Judge has rejected the petition vide the impugned order dated 13.02.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 72 years, is a senior citizen and is suffering from old age ailments. He further submits that the plaint-A schedule properties are situated within the present Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District and plaint-B schedule properties are situated at Gandepalli of present Kakinada District and the erstwhile East Godavari District was bifurcated to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Kakinada District and East Godavari District i.e. Revenue District and if judicial districts are separated, then no property would situated within the East Godavari District and therefore, the application for transfer should have been allowed. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaint schedule properties would fall outside the jurisdiction of Rajamahendravaram on formation of judicial districts of Rajamahendravaram, is not relevant at present for considering the matter in issue, as presently, it is evident that as per the case of the respondent except few, most of the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of Rajamahendravaram and even as per the petitioner’s petition for transfer, most of the schedule properties in A & B schedule are situated at different areas and that major portion of the schedule properties are located in the jurisdiction of the VII Additional District Judge’s Court, Peddapuram, but it is not the petitioner’s case that the entire plaint schedule property is outside the jurisdiction of Rajamahendravaram. Mere formation of revenue district, would not affect the jurisdiction of the judicial districts for the subject property. 10. Consequently, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire plaint schedule property at present is outside the jurisdiction of Rajamahendravaram and so the suit should have been transferred. 11. Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “24. 10. Consequently, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire plaint schedule property at present is outside the jurisdiction of Rajamahendravaram and so the suit should have been transferred. 11. Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal: (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage: (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it: (i) try or dispose of the same. (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section: (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court. (b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. [Inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 10 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977)].” 12. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. [Inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 10 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977)].” 12. In Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a High Court or a District Court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it or in any Court subordinate to it to any other Court for trial and disposal. This provision confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage either on an application by any party or suomotu. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. The Hon’ble Apex Court also laid the broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer. 13. It is apt to refer paragraphs-22 to 25 in Kulwinder Kaur (supra) as under: “22. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. 23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation “interest of justice” demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a “fair trial” in the court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the court to make such order. 24. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 934 this Court stated: (SCC p. 169, Para 2) “2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case.” (Emphasis supplied) 25. Similarly in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, (1990) 1 SCC 4 dealing with power of this Court to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Code, A.M. Ahmadi, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated: (SCC p. 9, Para 8) “8. Under the old section the State Government was empowered to transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in the High Court of that State to any other High Court on receipt of a report from the Judge trying or hearing the suit that there existed reasonable grounds for such transfer provided that the State Government of the State in which the other High Court had its principal seat consented to the transfer. The present Section 25 confers the power of transfer on the Supreme Court and is of wider amplitude. The present Section 25 confers the power of transfer on the Supreme Court and is of wider amplitude. Under the present provision the Supreme Court is empowered at any stage to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding from a High Court or other civil court in one State to a High Court or other civil court of another State if it is satisfied that such an order is expedient for the ends of justice. The cardinal principle for the exercise of power under this section is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is true that if more than one court has jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular court convenient to him. The mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not unknown where a party seeking justice chooses a forum most inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving that party of a fair trial. Parliament has, therefore, invested this Court with the discretion to transfer the case from one court to another if that is considered expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words of wide amplitude-for the ends of justice-have been advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion of the Apex Court as it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power. But the paramount consideration must be to see that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner's plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Leaned Principal District Judge rejected the application recording that there are no valid and sufficient grounds to transfer the suit. The petitioner's plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Leaned Principal District Judge rejected the application recording that there are no valid and sufficient grounds to transfer the suit. The respondent is also a senior citizen and lady. The distance between Tatipaka and Peddapuram is more than the distance between Tatipaka and Rajamahendravaram. It has also recorded that the V Additional District Court is designated to deal with the cases of senior citizens. Considering the facts of the case and for the reasons assigned in the order, the transfer petition was rejected. 15. The petitioner, as also the respondent, both are senior citizens. The plaintiff/respondent is lady. She has filed the suit at Rajamahendravaram. Her convenience is also to be given due consideration. The respondent’s specific case is that she is permanent resident of Tatipaka village and the Court at Peddapuram is located at a distance of about 100 kilometers, so it would be very inconvenient for her to travel at the age of 62 years with medical ailments and also being a lady. There is also a designated Court, V Additional District Court, to deal with the cases of senior citizens, where presently the suit is pending. For the reasons assigned in the Order, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned in rejecting the petition for transfer. No case for interference is made out in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. The Order of the learned District Judge reflects consideration of facts and circumstances with due application of mind and on weighing of such circumstances the petitioner’s application has been rejected. 17. The civil revision petition has got no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.