Dismissed¶38

Smt.Parvataneni Prameela Rani v. Sava Sudhakar

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2026TRCMP/58/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 24 CPC transfer petition; withdrawal and transfer of civil suit; joint trial of suits; commonality of parties; similarity of cause of action; convenience of parties irrelevant to transfer; conflicting judgments; multiplicity of proceedings; cancellation of registered settlement deed dated 20.06.1992; partition suit; O.S.No.574 of 2025 (Tadepalligudem); O.S.No.121 of 2025 (Vijayawada); Reddys Laboratories Ltd. v. Pulletikurthi Varaha Chandra Bose, 2004 Supreme (AP) 618; transfer petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The subject matter of the property in O.S.No.574 of 2025 lies within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadepalligudem, and the said property is not a subject matter of O.S.No.121 of 2025, whose schedule properties are situated at Dubacherla and Vijayawada. ¶29

Smt.Parvataneni Prameela Rani Vs Sava Sudhakar — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether O.S.No.574 of 2025 pending before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem ought to be withdrawn and transferred to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, to be tried along with O.S.No.121 of 2025.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

¶29

Key takeaways

The nature of both suits, their causes of action and the reliefs sought are different and distinct, and there is no commonality of parties since respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to O.S.No.574 of 2025.ratio¶32
Party convenience cannot be looked into in a transfer of a civil suit from one Court to another; a necessity for transfer arises only if there exists similarity of cause of action or commonality of parties, and no such situation exists in the present case.ratio¶36
It is not a fit case to withdraw O.S.No.574 of 2025 from the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer it to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada; accordingly the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - sought withdrawal of O.S.No.574 of 2025 (cancellation of settlement deed No.947 of 1992 dated 20.06.1992) from the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, for joint trial with O.S.No.121 of 2025 (partition), on grounds of common pleadings and issues, risk of conflicting judgments, multiplicity of proceedings and petitioner's inability to travel (age about 69 years) - Held: the two suits differ in nature, cause of action and relief; the property in O.S.No.574 of 2025 lies within Tadepalligudem jurisdiction and is not included in O.S.No.121 of 2025; respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to O.S.No.574 of 2025, so there is no commonality of parties; party convenience cannot be looked into in a transfer of a civil suit, and transfer is warranted only on similarity of cause of action or commonality of parties, which is absent - applying Reddys Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Pulletikurthi Varaha Chandra Bose, 2004 Supreme (AP) 618 - petition dismissed, no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions and interim orders, if any, closed.

¶1

APHC010098482026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3397]

¶4

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶7

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 58/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.parvataneni Prameela Rani

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Sava Sudhakar and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.M R K CHAKRAVARTHY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.P RAJASEKHAR

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.58 of 2026

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada.

¶22

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶23

I. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.121 of 2025, on the file of the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada seeking partition of the suit schedule property, which was succeeded by the petitioner from his father Late Sava Gopal Rao. The petitioner pleaded that his father died intestate on 01.07.1990 and after service of notice in the aforesaid suit, the respondent No.2 herein filed the written statement admitting the said suit claim. The petitioner further pleaded that pending the suit for partition, the respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, seeking to cancel the settlement deed No.947 of 1992 dated 20.06.1992, before the SubRegistrar, Bhimadole, which was said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner by his mother by name S. Kusuma Anjani Devi. The petitioner further pleaded that the claim in both the suits is with regard

¶24

to the suit properties belonging to the petitioner’s father and the issues and evidence to be recorded in both the suits will also be the same.

¶25

II. The petitioner pleaded that if the two suits are not heard together, there is likelihood of conflicting judgments on the same issues involved. The petitioner pleaded that he is aged about 69 years and is not in a position to travel between Tadepalligudem and Vijayawada and the respondent No.1 mischievously filed the suit without cause of action and also to cause hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025, is transferred from Tadepalligudem to Vijayawada, and heard along with O.S.No.121 of 2025, on the file of the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. The petitioner pleaded that the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025 was filed for seeking cancellation of the registered settlement deed dated 20.06.1992 and the parties in both the suits belong to the same family.

¶26

III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the pleadings, issues involved in both the suits are common and identical and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments and also to secure the ends of justice, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to transfer O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, to try along with O.S.No.121 of 2025, which is pending before the said Court.

¶27

The respondents filed a counter affidavit by denying the material averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that there are no grounds to allow the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition and requested to dismiss the transfer civil miscellaneous petition.

¶28

Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel respondents. Perused the material available on record.

¶29

The relief sought by the petitioner in the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition is to withdraw O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, to try the same along with O.S.No.121 of 2025, which is pending before the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025 is filed by the respondent No.1 alone against the petitioner herein seeking the relief of cancellation of the registered settlement deed dated 20.06.1992, which was registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Bhimadole. The subject matter of property in the said suit proceedings is situated within the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadepalligudem. Another suit in O.S.No.121 of 2025 is filed before the Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, by the petitioner herein seeking partition of the plaint schedule property therein against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. All the schedule properties in O.S.No.121 of 2025 are situated at Dubacherla and Vijayawada. The schedule property in

¶30

O.S.No.574 of 2025 is not a subject matter of the property in O.S.No.121 of

¶31

¶32

The nature of both the suits, cause of action and the relief sought in both the suits are different and distinct. As noticed supra, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are not the parties to the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025. Therefore, there is no commonality of parites in both the suits. Whereas, in O.S.No.574 of 2025, the pleadings are not completed and the issues are also not settled. Moreover, the Court at Vijayawada has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in O.S.No.121 of 2025 and the nature of evidence sought to be produced is different in both the suits.

¶33

In a case of Reddys Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Pulletikurthi Varaha Chandra Bose¹ , the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “ 8. The necessity or occasion to transfer these suits from one Court to another would arise, if only, there exists any similarity of causes of action or commonality of parties. Such a situation does not exist in the present case. The relief claimed in the five suits referred to above is recovery of money on the basis of pronotes, whereas the relief claimed in the suit filed by the petitioner at Secunderabad, is for declaration touching upon the FDRs., standing in the names of the defendants therein. It may be true that the defendants in O.S. No. 88 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, incidentally figured as defendants in the other suits also. However, as long as the relief claimed in the suits is different, it is not at all permissible for transferring the suits ”.

¶34

In the case at hand, the nature of both suits, cause of action and relief sought in both the suits are different and distinct. The subject matter of the

¶35

1 2004 Supreme (AP) 618

¶36

property in O.S.No.574 of 2025 is not included, in O.S.No.121 of 2025, which is now pending before the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada. It is well settled that “parties convenience cannot be looked into in a transfer of civil suit from one Court to another Court”. The necessity for transfer of suits from one Court to another would arise if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of the parties, such situation does not exist in the present suit.

¶37

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that it is not the fit case to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and transfer the same to the VII Additional District Court, Vijayawada.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Date: 07.04.2026 SRT

¶41

_______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Smt.Parvataneni Prameela Rani v. Sava Sudhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Parvataneni Prameela Rani v. Sava Sudhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Sushma Vs Sk. Mohammad Rafi

Thoka Nagaiah alias Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Pyare Jan & 2 Others Vs D.Satyanarayana & 25 Ors.

Peyyeti Ranga Rao Vs Kolli Purushotham Chowdary

P.Ranga Rao Vs K. Purushotham Chowdary

Chebrolu Krishnaveni Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh