SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Smt. Ranjana Gadia W/o Sri Dilip Gadla – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Yedla Ramesh Naidu S/o Sri Demudu, Hindu – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.2029 of 2022
Decided on : 22-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Rajasekhar
For the Respondents: S. Sridhar

The discretion of the court to hear parties before transferring a case must be exercised judiciously in the context of the reason for transfer, and Section 24 CPC does not specifically require notice to all parties in the connected suit.

Headnote:

Transfer of Suit - Civil Procedure Code - Section 24

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC to transfer a suit for permanent injunction to be tried along with another suit for declaration of title involving the same property. The Principal District Judge directed the petitioner to add all parties from the other suit to the transfer petition, which led to the filing of the revision petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the direction to add all parties from the other suit to the transfer petition was not in line with the provisions of Section 24 CPC, as it does not specifically require notice to all parties in the connected suit. The court held that the discretion to hear parties before transferring a case must be exercised judiciously in the context of the reason for transfer.

Issues: The main issue was whether the direction to add all parties from the other suit to the transfer petition was in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 24 CPC does not specifically require notice to all parties in the connected suit and that the discretion of the court to hear parties before transferring a case must be exercised judiciously.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order, and directing the court to proceed with the disposal of the petition after hearing both sides.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner against the order dated 04.08.2022 in TOP No.4 of 2022 on the file of the court of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed under Section 24 CPC to transfer suit in O.S.No.468 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli to try along with suit in O.S.No.10 of 2019 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District.

2. TOP No.4 of 2022 was filed on the ground that O.S.No.468 of 2007 was filed before the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle by the petitioner for permanent injunction against the respondent in respect of property to an extent of Ac.4.72 ½ cents land in S.No.239/9 to 14 and 16 to 20 of Gollapalem, Subbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Later, the suit was transferred to the court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. The suit was posted for cross examination of DW.1 since December, 2018. As on the date of filing of the transfer petition, the said suit was adjourned to 28.01.2022. The respondent, along with 12 others, filed suit in O.S.No.10 of 2019 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle against the petitioner, her husband and her vendors for declaration of title in respect of the same property which is the subject matter of O.S.No.468 of 2007. O.S.No.10 of 2019 was also posted to 28.01.2022 for taking steps to bring LRs of the defendants no.4, 8 and 16 who died. The petitioner submitted that the contentions and evidence of both parties is the same in both suits and therefore it is necessary that both suits be tried by the same Court to avoid multiplicity of evidence and conflicting judgments, since O.S.No.10 of 2019 is the comprehensive suit.

3. The respondent did not oppose the petition and did not file counter. However, the learned Principal District Judge directed, by a detailed order, the petitioner in the transfer O.P.No.4 of 2022 is as follows:

    “1. Add all the parties to O.S.No.10 of 2019 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli to the present petition and carry out amendment and file neat copy. This direction is given exercising discretion in terms of Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Sections 41 and 151 of CPC.

2. To avoid further delay if any, the petitioner is permitted cause service of notice of neat copy on the counsel who is representing the parties being added for the favour of information and accommodation if they are willing to take notice.

3. For necessary compliance posted to 08.09.2022.”

Having aggrieved by the directions, this revision petition is preferred.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order I, Rule 10 or even 151 CPC cannot be invoked for the petition under Section 24 CPC as the scope and object of Section 24 CPC does not contemplate notice to the parties in the connected suit.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in fact no objection was raised by the respondent for granting the relief claimed in the transfer petition. He further submitted that the petitioner ought to have complied the directions issued by the Principal District Judge, instead of filing the revision petition.

6. In the impugned order, the learned Judge, after referring to the provisions in Order I, Rule 3 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC held the opinion that commonality of parties and connectivity between two matters is asserted by the petitioner and therefore deciding such aspect in the absence of the parties to the other connected matter would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the learned Judge felt that it is desirable to direct adding all the parties in the connected suit to this petition and giving them notice of this petition.

7. For the purpose of better appreciation, Section 24 CPC is excerpted here below:

    “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.—(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top