Midthipati Venkata Appala Raju, Vs Midthipati Ramesh

MIDTHIPATI VENKATA APPALA RAJU,, S/O.LATE RAMA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.292, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, PATHAPET, NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEERNA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP.

¶11

MIDTHIPATI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O.LATE RAMA RAO, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.2-92, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, PATHAPET, NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEERNA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILEEAST GODAVARI DISTRICT,AP.

¶12

MIDTHIPATI BALARK,, S/O. LATE SATYNARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.2-92, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, PATHAPET, NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEERNA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY JUNIOR SENIOR PATERNAL UNCLE, 1ST PLAINTIFF VIZ., MIDTHIPATI VENKATA APPALA RAJU, SO. LATE RAMA RAO,

¶13

MIDTHIPATI AMMAJI @ JILLELLA AMMAJI, (DIED ON 09-09-2024)

¶14

...PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

MIDTHIPATI RAMESH, S/O. GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE FINANCE BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF

¶17

2

¶18

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, PATHAPET, NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶19

MIDTHIPATI BHUVANESWARI, W/O. MIDTHIPATI RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PRESENTLY DOING VILLAGE VOLUNTEER, RESIDENT OF AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, PATHAPET, NADURUBADA533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶20

MIDTHIPATI GOPALA KRISHNA, S/O. CHITTIYYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SURVEYOR. RESIDENT OF C/O. KOTHAPALLI ACHAMMA, PATAPETA, NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP.

¶21

MIDTHIPATI SUBBALU, W/O. GOPALA KRISHNA, (NOT PRESSED FOR TIME BEING WITH LEAVE OF THE TRIAL COURT)

¶22

VARASALA RUKMINI, W/O. LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE. RESIDENT OF AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, PATHAPET, , NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, I DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶23

VARASALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE. RESIDENT OF PATAPETA, NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶24

VARASALA VENKATA GIRI, ATE KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, RESIDENT OF AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, PATHAPET, NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶25

MIDTHIPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE VERRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PRESENTLY DOING VILLAGE VOLUNTEER, RESIDENT OF AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, PATHAPET, NADURUBADA-533255, RAYAVARAM MANDAL DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶26

3

¶27

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT AT AMALAPURAM, A.P. (EX-PARTE IN TRAIL COURT BELOW)

¶28

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶29

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toPetitioner begs to present the above Civil Revision Petition in this Honble Court aggrieved by Order Dated 05-03-2026 in TR.O.P.No.77 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, wherein dismissed Transfer Original Petition under Section 24 of CPC without assigned reasons

¶30

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay of all further proceeding in P.O.P.No.1 of 2024 on the file of the court of the Civil Judge 'Junior Division), Anaparthi, East Godavari District including operation of order dated 05- 03-2026 in TR.O.P.N0.77 of 2025 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District pending disposal of the above Revision in this Hon’ble Court in interest of justice and pass such

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶33

1.RAMA MURTY P V S A

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

4

¶38

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶39

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1076 OF 2026

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 05.03.2026 passed in TR.O.P.No.77 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶43

The petitioners herein filed P.O.P.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.SR.No.501 of 2024. The said suit was filed against the respondents for permanent injunction and it is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthi. Seeking to transfer the same to the file of any competent Court of jurisdiction, the petitioners filed Transfer Original Petition No.77 of 2025 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’). The Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram has dismissed the said petition with the following reasons:-

¶44

e) In order to transfer a case, there must exist something more compelling from the point of public justice and not the attitude of a sensitive litigant. Except expressing apprehension that the petitioners may not get justice, no substantive reason was given for transfer. Transfer cannot be made on such vague allegations, which has not been supported by any relevant material.

¶45

5

¶46

f) Administration of justice is the only duty of any Court and in such process, the learned Presiding Officer had proceeded with the matter and as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent, if the suit is transferred to any other Court, that act indirectly casts doubt on the integrity of the Presiding Officer. It is not interest of either advocate or the officer to continue the suit, in any particular Court and ultimately, paramount consideration of the parties have to be taken into consideration.

¶47

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and upon perusal of the material available on record as well as the reasons assigned by the Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District for dismissing the Transfer Petition, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not raised any valid legal grounds seeking to transfer of P.O.P as prayed for.

¶48