( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of two interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff in the trial Court in the same suit. Therefore, these two Civil Revision Petitions are clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) CRP No. 1954/1992 is filed by the defendants in O. S. No. 187/1990 pending on the file of the Court of the Second Asst. Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The said suit is filed by the respondent herein namely T. S. Bhagavanulu. In the said suit, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the transfer order issued by the defendants dt. 26-12-1989 transferring him from Hyderabad to Siligiri in West bengal is void being tainted by mala fide and made in contravention of Standing orders etc. In the said suit he filed I. A. No. 261/1990 under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. for restraining the defendants from taking further steps in pursuance of the transfer order dt. 26-12-1989. The trial Court made an order on 25-1-1990 restraining the defendants from taking any further steps in pursuance of the impugned transfer order dt. 26-12-1989. The defendants after service of summons, sought the vacation of the ex parte order made by the trial court on 25-1-1990 mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was relieved from duty at Hyderabad office on 1-1-1990 and in that view of the matter the interim order made by the trial Court on 25-1-1990 became infructuous and therefore liable to be vacated. The trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants and made the ex parte interim order granted on 25-1-1990 absolute by its order dt. 6-8-1991. That led the defendants to prefer an appeal, C. M. A. No. 208/1991 to the Court of Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courtat Hyderabad. The appellate court also dismissed the appeal and affimed the order made by the trial Court. Hence CRP No. 1954/1992 by the defendants.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel of the parties. Sri C. V. Mohana Reddy the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that there was an error ap parent on the face of the order of the appellate Court as well as the order of the trial Court in not noticing the fact that the plaintiff ceased to be an employee of the defendants at Hyderabad with effect from 1-1-1990 on which date the defendants sent the relief order by registered post acknowledgement due. Secondly, Sri Reddy would submit that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court lost sight of the fact that the plaintiff utterly failed to lay any factual matrix to bring home the charge of mala fide against the defendants and the allegations contained in the plaint in that regard is as vague as it could be. Thirdly, Sri Mohana Reddy would submit that the transfer is an incidence of service and who should work where is primarily for the management or the employer to decide and unless in a given case a transfer order is tainted by mala fide or is made in violation of Statutory provisions, normally the Courts should not interfere with the transfer orders and in the present case none of these grounds is available to the plaintiff to assail the transfer order. For all these reasons, Sri Reddy would appeal to the Court to interfere in the matter contending that a case is made out under Section 115 of C. P. C.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ respondent Smt. A. Chaya Devi would contend that both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding on a question of fact and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C. P. C. is incompetent and she would attack that there is no any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction on the part of the Courts below.

( 5 ) IT is true that transfer is an incidence of service and who should work where is primarily for the Management or the Employer to decide and the courts are very slow to interfere with the transfer orders unless in a given case