##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:58713

APHC010415142025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Friday, the twenty sixth day of December two thousand and twenty five

Present

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

Civil Revision Petition No: 3499 of 2025

Between:

S.Praveena ...Petitioner

and

S.Sreenivasa Reddy and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner:

1. Panguluru Rachana

Counsel for the respondents:

1. Ineni Venkata Prasad

The Court made the following

2

C.R.P.No.3499 of 20220255 :APHC:58713

O R D E R:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India against the order dated 11.11.2025 allowing the petition in

Tr.O.P.No.43 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the District Judge,

Ananthapuramu filed by the respondent No.1 herein to transfer the suit in

O.S.No.193 of 2014 from the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge,

Hindupur to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda to try along with

the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2016.

2. Initially, the suit in O.S.No.193 of 2014 was decreed ex parte.

Later, the defendant No.8 therein filed interlocutory application for setting

aside the ex parte decree. It was allowed. Thereafter, he filed the

transfer petition.

3. O.S.No.193 of 2014 was filed originally against 9 defendants

(thereafter, defendants Nos.10 to 12 were added in the year 2024)

seeking partition of lands of Ac.26.35 cents in S.Nos.111, 112, 114 and

126 of Chilamathur village. Later, the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2016 was filed

by Smt.S.Geetha who is the 7^th defendant in O.S.No.193 of 2014 initially

against 9 defendants and subsequently 2 defendants, who are the

plaintiffs in O.S.No.193 of 2014 by name S.Sreenivasa Reddy and

P.V.Sivamma, were impleaded in the year 2019. O.S.No.38 of 2016 was

also filed for partition of as many as 15 items of property, out of which

Sl.Nos.1 to 4 correspond to the four items of property shown in the

schedule of properties in O.S.No.193 of 2014.

4. Under these circumstances, inspite of resistance offered to the

transfer petition, it was allowed by the District Court.

5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition

was filed only to delay the proceedings and the District Court failed to

consider the intention behind filing the petition under the above stated

3

C.R.P.No.3499 of 20220255 :APHC:58713

circumstances. He further submitted that instead of transferring the old

suit, the District Court ought to have transferred the subsequently filed

suit to the Court where the first suit is pending. He further submitted that

though the revision petitioner opposed the transfer in the counter itself,

that if Court comes to the conclusion to transfer the suit, but, the second

suit may be transferred to the Court where the first suit is pending, but,

without considering the same and also not assigning any reason, the

petition was allowed. Therefore, he submitted that even if the order is

confirmed by this Court, the above change may be ordered.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1

submitted that the District Court had rightly passed the order as the later

suit is comprehensive one containing not only the schedule properties in

the previous suit, but, also additional properties.

8. The respondents Nos.2 to 16 are shown as not necessary parties.

9. As can be seen from the contentions of both the sides in the facts

and circumstances in the present case, it is just and necessary to have

trial in both the suits together to avoid conflict in decisions. In a transfer

petition what is to be examined is whether there is necessity to have both

suits tried together. It is not a case where any party asked for a common

trial. Even in such a case, it is for the trial Court to take a decision on

such aspect. It is also represented that the trial in O.S.No.38 of 2016 is

coming for continuation of evidence of defendants, whereas, the evidence

in O.S.No.193 of 2014 is at the stage of cross-examinat