Dismissed¶¶32

Sri M. Siva Gangadhar, v. Sri. M. Raghavendra

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2026TRCMP/378/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 24 CPC transfer petition dismissed by Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao, 02.03.2026) in TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION No.378 of 2025; refusal to withdraw and transfer O.S.No.1157 of 2022 from Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati to Principal District Judge, Kurnool; convenience of parties; old age and distance (350 Kms) ground rejected; party's personal appearance not required at every adjournment when counsel appears; transfer justified only on similarity of cause of action or commonality of parties; written statement filed, case at framing of issues stage; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions and any interim orders stand closed. ¶¶32

Sri M. Siva Gangadhar, Vs Sri. M. Raghavendra — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions and any interim orders stand closed.

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit O.S.No.1157 of 2022 pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati should be withdrawn and transferred to the Principal District Judge, Kurnool District under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

Necessity for transfer of a suit from one Court to another arises only where there exists similarity of cause of action or commonality of the parties; when such a situation does not exist, the relief of transfer cannot be granted.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

Appearance of a party in a civil suit is not required on each and every date of adjournment before the trial Court where the party's counsel attends the proceedings; the party's personal appearance is required only on the date of giving his/her evidence.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

Since the petitioners' personal appearance was not required on every date of adjournment, the written statement stood filed and the case was posted only for framing of issues, the transfer petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the defendants in O.S.No.1157 of 2022 (Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati) seeking withdrawal of the suit and its transfer to the Principal District Judge, Kurnool District, on the ground that petitioner No.1, an aged person suffering from ailments and residing at Guntakal (Anantapur District), could not travel approximately 350 Kms to Tirupati. Held, dismissing the petition with no order as to costs: (i) the appearance of a party in a civil suit is not required on each and every date of adjournment where counsel attends the proceedings, the party's appearance being required only on the date of giving evidence; (ii) necessity for transfer of a suit from one Court to another arises only where there is similarity of cause of action or commonality of parties; and (iii) the written statement had been filed and the case was posted only for framing of issues.

¶1

APHC010632522025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3397]

¶5

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶8

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 378/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri M. Siva Gangadhar, and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri M Raghavendra and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.PALEGARI JAYACHANDRA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.W.V.B. SHRAVAN.

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.378 of 2025 ORDER:

¶21

The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.1157 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and transfer the same to the Principal District Judge, Kurnool District.

¶22

The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

¶23

I. The petitioner No.1 is an old aged person suffering from various age related ailments and physical infirmities and is presently residing at Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District, after being forcibly ousted from his native residence by his own sons, who are the respondents herein. The petitioner No.1 pleaded that due to his old age ailments, it is very difficult for the petitioner No.1 to travel at a distance of approximately 350Kms from Ananthapur District to Tirupati District, as such the petitioners are constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.1157 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and transfer the same to the Principal District Judge, Kurnool District.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are no merits

¶25

in the transfer petition and requested to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition.

¶26

Heard Sri M.S.Bhanu Prasad Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Jayachandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and

¶27

Sri W.V.B.Shravan, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

¶28

The grounds urged by the petitioner No.1 for seeking transfer of withdraw the suit in O.S.No.1157 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati to the Principal District Judge, Kurnool District, is that he is old aged person and suffering from various health issues and it is very difficult for him to travel from Ananthapur District to Tirupati, which involves a long distance of 350Kms. As per the e-Courts case status, written statement is filed in O.S.No.1157 of 2022 and the stage of the case is that it is posted for framing of issues. It is undisputed by both the learned counsels that the petitioner herein is not residing at Kurnool and he is currently staying at Guntakal. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the distance in between Guntakal and Kurnool is approximately 130Kms and he would further contend that the petitioners herein are not seeking transfer of the suit in O.S.No.1157 of 2022 from Tirupati to Guntakal and that there are no merits in the present transfer petition.

¶29

On a perusal of the material available on record, the petitioners herein, who are the defendants in O.S.No.1157 of 2022, have engaged a counsel before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The law is well settled that “the appearance of the party in a civil suit is not at all required on each and every date of adjournment before the trial Court, unless and until his/her counsel is attending the Court proceedings on every date of adjournment. Further, the appearance of the party is required only on the date of giving his/her evidence before the trail Court ”.

¶30

Necessity for transfer of suit from one Court to another would arise if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of the parties. When such a situation does not exist, the relief claimed for the transfer of suit cannot be granted. Section 24 of CPC confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer the suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage either on the application by any party or suo moto.

¶31

As noticed supra , the personal appearance of the petitioners herein is not at all required before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, on each and every date of adjournment in O.S.No.1157 of 2022, and furthermore, written statement is filed in O.S.No.1157 of 2022 and the stage of the case is posted for framing of issues. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners and as such the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶32

With the above observations, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

_______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶35

Date: 02.03.2026 SRT

Sri M. Siva Gangadhar, v. Sri. M. Raghavendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M. Siva Gangadhar, v. Sri. M. Raghavendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Anfa Plastics, Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad

Smt M Sunandini Vs T Anilkumar Reddy

Abburi Pushpa Leela Vs Abburi Rambabu

Gunji @ Derangula Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Gunji Anil

Athkur Sandhya Parameswari Vs Mude Vasu Naik

Vanapalli Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh