ORDER:

The petitioner herein filed the present Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to review the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025 with a prayer to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.1481 of 2025, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, and transfer the same to the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, to try along with O.S.No.58 of 2024, pending before the said learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali. On hearing both sides, this Court dismissed the Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025 on merits, against which the present review petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2026, is filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that the cause of action arose in both the suits are different. The petitioner pleaded that in fact the reliefs sought by the parties in both the suits stems from the same case of action, that the same are common ancestral properties and were mutually distributed between them, but the said distribution is not being honoured. The petitioner would further contend that this Court ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner is an old lady, being a resident of Guntur, is facing great difficulty and hardship to travel to Vijayawada and to Tenali on each and every adjournment to attend the Court and that the petitioner is constrained to file the present review petition to review the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the suit in O.S.No.58 of 2024, on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, is filed against the petitioner herein for seeking relief of partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and the suit schedule property in the said suit is located at Tenali in Guntur District. The petitioner herein engaged an advocate and is contesting the matter, wherein the trial has already been commenced and the respondent has already filed her evidence in the form of chief affidavit in the Court on 15.09.2025 along with the petition to receive the additional documents on her behalf. The respondent would contend that at this stage, the respondent received suit summons in O.S.No.1481 of 2025, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, which is posted for first adjournment for hearing on 20.11.2025 and the suit schedule properties in both the suits are different and the cause of action arose in both the suits are also different. The respondent further contended that on hearing learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court had rightly dismissed the transfer civil miscellaneous petition and that the review petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

The material on record reveals that after filing of the transfer civil miscellaneous petition and after hearing both sides, this Court dismissed the transfer civil miscellaneous petition on merits, against which the petitioner filed the present petition to review the said order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. In a case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi¹1980 (2) SCC 167, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“14. plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentio