This petition is filed for transfer of O.S.No.644 of 2010 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as the connected suits O.S.No.317 of 2010 and O.S.No.248 of 2011 are pending on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. It is alleged that the petitioner is the defendant in all the three suits and there was an understanding with regard to the payments of the amounts and the defence in all the suits is common and nature of evidence to be adduced is the same. When this Court questioned as to why the application is filed before this Court when the remedy under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) can be availed before the Chief Judge, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the decision of this Court reported in ManchukondaVenkata Jagannadham v. Chettipalli Bullamma and others (AIR 2011 AP 104), the said transfer application is not being entertained and consequently it has become a bar.

3. According to the purport of the above judgment, Additional District Judge is not subordinate to the District Judge and consequently, the District Judge has no power to transfer the same and cannot exercise the power under Section 24 CPC for transferring of any cases from his file or withdrawing the cases from the file of the Additional District Judge. He did not agree with the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court and also found that under Section 24 CPC it is difficult to import that Additional and Assistant Judges referred to means Additional District Judge and consequently held that the transfer application cannot be entertained by the District Judge.

4. Before considering the maintainability of the application, it is to be noted that the purpose of procedural law is for the convenience of the parties and the Court. It is always aimed at speedy and less expensive remedy to the parties. Any effort to interpret the procedural law should be necessarily with the object of the interest of the parties unless there is any mandatory prohibition for exercise of any power. It is also to be noted that more importance has to be given to the provisions of the CPC rather than the provisions of the other Act, if they are not in conflict or in exclusion.

5. Section 24 CPC is as follows:

“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, or

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and-

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.

(2) Whereas any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub section (1), the Court which1 [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] 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 for 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.]

6. Evidently, under Section 24(3)(a) CPC Additional and Assistant Judg