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

2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 30818

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

COMMON ORDER:

As in all these Transfer Criminal Petitions, petitioner is common though it is filed against different respondents and point involved in all the cases are similar, they can be disposed of by common order.

2. These Transfer Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C), seeking transfer of Original Money Suits filed against him by different persons to competent Court at Nellore. The prayer in all these petitions is reflected as under in a tabular form:

Sl. No. Name of the Plaintiff Name of the Defendant O.S.No. Name of the Court Prayer of the petitioner
1 T.Sudarsana Rao V.Srinivasa Rao 40 /2021 Senior Civil Judge Court, Gudur Senior Civil Judge Court, Nellore.
2 Chinni Sireesha V.Srinivasa Rao 85/2021 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Nellore
3 G.Tirupalaiah V.Srinivasa Rao 250/2019 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore
4 Chinni Sathya Narayana V.Srinivasa Rao 81/2021 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that his wife was doing boiled rice, imitation jewelleries and sarees business at Sullurpet, Nellore District while procuring them from Chennai, to supplement their family income, to support the engineering study of their children and during course of her handling the business, she had borrowed some amount which she repaid, but lenders insisted the petitioner to issue blank cheques and pronotes as he is a government employee, due to that out of good faith, he executed cheques and pronotes, handed over to the creditors who created different suits and filed cheque bounce cases and money suits. The main contention of the petitioner is that creditors have filed suits at different places in Nellore District and also in Rangareddy District of Telangana State, and it is difficult for him to attend different Courts as the Courts are posting some of the cases on the same date, which causing much prejudice to him. He also gave details of the cheque bounce cases and money suits filed against him. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in similar circumstances, this Court in Criminal Petition No.8700 of 2016 and batch, allowed the petition, transferred all the cheque bounce cases to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nidadavolu and he prays to apply the same ratio and transfer the cases.

4. I have heard Mr.S.D.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.149, 150 and 155 of 2022. Learned Counsel Mr.Thota Ashok Kumar, represented on behalf of Mr.K.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.154 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that creditors have filed cheque bounce cases and money suits against the petitioner arising out of the same transaction using blank signed cheques and blank signed promissory notes obtained from the petitioner as security for loan borrowed by the wife of the petitioner. He would further submit that it is difficult for the petitioner to appear in different Courts when the cases are posted on the same date, due to that petitioner is seeking transfer of all Civil Money Suits filed against him to Courts at Nellore. He prays to allow the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.154 of 2022, would submit that in O.S.No.250 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kovur, plaintiff side evidence is completed, it is coming up for defendant side evidence. He would further submit that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner as cause of action arose in all the suits is not similar. He prays to dismiss the petition.

7. Now, the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is:-

“Whether th

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top