IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B Syamsunder, J.
Yarragundia Sowmya Sri - Petitioner
Versus
Gurijala Venkata Rao - Respondent
Trans. Civil misc. petition no: 115/2024
Decided On : 13-08-2024
Transfer - Civil Procedure - CPC Section 24 - The court discussed the discretionary power of transfer under Section 24 of CPC, emphasizing the necessity for a valid reason for transfer, especially when the trial is at an advanced stage.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to transfer a civil suit from Ongole to Guntur, claiming financial hardship and fear of threats from the respondent, who alleged forgery of a promissory note by the petitioner's deceased mother-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial was at an advanced stage and that the petitioner had not provided sufficient grounds for transfer, particularly regarding the alleged threats.
Issues: Whether there are grounds to transfer the civil suit from Ongole to Guntur given the circumstances presented by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to transfer cases must be exercised with caution and that the advanced stage of the trial and lack of specific threats did not warrant a transfer.
Result: The transfer petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
B Syamsunder, J.
I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Mr.Haranadha Raju Katta, as well as, learned counsel Mr.Y.Ramesh, representing on behalf of Mr.Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for respondent.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short, ‘CPC’) seeking transfer of O.S. No.69 of 2021 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole of Prakasam District, to Senior Civil Judge Court, Sattenapalli of Guntur District, on the ground that now she is residing in her parents house at Sattenapalli Town of Guntur Judicial District.
3. The petitioner submits that respondent filed O.S. No.69 of 2021 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole of Prakasam District, basing on forged promissory note on the ground that it has been executed by her mother-in-law on 17.01.2019 by borrowing Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) from the respondent. It is also the contention of the petitioner that she is the only legal heir of her mother-in-law by name Smt.G.Devi, who died on 21.05.2021, due to covid-19 and her father-in-law and her husband were also died during covid-19 pandemic period. The main contention of the petitioner is that her mother-in-law was a government employee died due to covid-19 and to knock away retirement benefits of her mother-in-law, respondent herein is no other than brother of her mother-in-law forged the promissory note dated 17.01.2019 and filed suit. The petitioner submits that she is financially weak and depending upon her parents, due to that, she is not in a position to travel a distance of 175 Kms from Sattenapalli Town to Ongole Town and she is also not having any male assistance and if she attend the court at Ongole, respondent being a male person may threaten her. She prays to allow the petition.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Smt.G.Devi, who died on 21.05.2021, due to covid-19 and after her death, the respondent who is no other than brother of Smt.G.Devi, forged the promissory note dated 17.01.2019 for Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) and filed suit pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Ongole of Prakasam District, wherein petitioner filed her written statement. He would further submit that now the petitioner is residing in her parents house at Sattenapalli Town and she has no source of income to bear travel and stay expenses to put forth her defence in a false suit filed by the respondent with an intention to knock away the properties and death benefits of mother-in-law of the petitioner. He prays to allow the petition.
5. The learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that respondent filed suit basing on promissory note dated 17.01.2019 against the petitioner being legal representative of deceased borrower sought decree against the estate of deceased, wherein petitioner engaged a counsel and filed written statement. He would further submit that in O.S. No.69 of 2021 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Ongole of Prakasam District, trial has been commenced wherein plaintiff’s side evidence already closed and the case is coming up for the cross-examination of petitioner as D.W.1. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent that when the trial of the suit already commenced, which is at the advanced stage of hearing, request of the petitioner to transfer the case cannot be considered. He prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is:
“Whether there are grounds to transfer O.S. No.69 of 2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Ongole of Prakasam District, to Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Sattenapalli of Guntur District?”
7. Point: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 24 of CPC, which reads as under:
“24. General Power of transfer and withdrawal:-
(1) On the application of any
Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Pulletikurhti Varaha Chandra Bose and Others
AI
The court reaffirmed that transfer of cases under Section 24 of CPC requires compelling reasons, especially when trials are at an advanced stage.
Court do not think mere temporary stay for some reasons cannot be the foundation for transferring matters pending before the competent jurisdiction filed by the petitioner, who is a permanent residen....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.