IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of considering the convenience of both parties, particularly senior citizens, in transfer petitions under Article 227 and Section 24 of the CPC.

Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 24 - Transfer of suit - Revision petition filed challenging the rejection of transfer petition - The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of convenience for both parties, especially senior citizens - The Principal District Judge found no valid grounds for transfer, considering the convenience of the respondent and the designated court for senior citizens. (Paras 14, 15, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court clarified that mere formation of revenue districts does not affect the jurisdiction of judicial districts, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the entire plaint schedule property was outside the jurisdiction of the Rajamahendravaram court. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a senior citizen, sought to transfer a suit from Rajamahendravaram to Peddapuram, arguing that most properties were located outside the jurisdiction of the Rajamahendravaram court, while the respondent opposed the transfer citing inconvenience.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Principal District Judge's decision, noting that both parties are senior citizens and the designated court is equipped to handle such cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer of the suit was justified based on the convenience of the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the convenience of both parties must be considered, especially for senior citizens, and found no illegality in the rejection of the transfer petition.
Result: The civil revision petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

2. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 105 of 2022 on the file of V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, challenging the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Transfer O.P. No. 120 of 2023 by the Court of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, rejecting the petitioner’s transfer petition.

3. The petitioner filed application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the suit O.S. No. 105 of 2022 from the Court of V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram and transfer the same to the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram or to any Additional District Courts at Kakinada.

4. The application was filed inter-alia submitting that the petitioner is an old aged person and is permanent resident of Kakinada. The properties in plaint-A & B schedule are situated at different areas and major portion of landed properties are situated at Surampalem village which comes under the jurisdiction of the VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram. It was also pleaded that the respondent was resident of Razole and the distance between Razole to Peddapuram and Rajahmundry will be the same. It was further submitted that the respondent was presently residing at Hyderabad and the distance from Hyderbad to Rajahmundry or Peddapuram will be the same. So, no prejudice would be caused if the suit is transferred to Peddapuram or to Kakinada.

5. The respondent filed objections inter-alia submitting that the plaint-A schedule properties are located within the jurisdiction of Rajamahendravaram Court and only Item-1 in plaint-B schedule property will come under the purview of the jurisdiction of Peddapuram Court. The petitioner’s allegation that the major portion of the plaint schedule properties being located at Surampalem village was denied. Further objection was taken that if the suit was transferred to Peddapuram which is about a distance of 20 kilometers from Kakinada where the petitioner resides, the respondent would suffer irreparably as the Court at Peddapuram is located at a distance of about 100 kilometers from Tatipaka, the place of residence of the respondent, then it would be very inconvenient for the respondent and there would be every chance for threatening the respondent. The respondent also submitted that she is aged about 62 years and was suffering from ailments. The respondent is permanent resident of Tatipaka whereas the petitioner is resident of Kakinada.

6. The Principal District Judge has rejected the petition vide the impugned order dated 13.02.2024.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 72 years, is a senior citizen and is suffering from old age ailments. He further submits that the plaint-A schedule properties are situated within the present Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District and plaint-B schedule properties are situated at Gandepalli of present Kakinada District and the erstwhile East Godavari District was bifurcated to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Kakinada District and East Godavari District i.e. Revenue District and if judicial districts are separated, then no property would situated within the East Godavari District and therefore, the application for transfer should have been allowed.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaint schedule properties would fall outside the jurisdiction of Rajamahendravaram on formation of judicial districts of Rajamahendravaram, is not relevant at present for considering the matter in issue, as presently, it is evident that as per the case of the respondent except few, most of the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of Rajamahendrav