##PAGE1##

Neutral Citation: _______________

APHC010081042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3606]

AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 01^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.58 OF 2025 Between:

1. Burra Bhargav, S/o. Late Adinarayana Sastri, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Flat No.32, Visaka - A Colony, Srikakulam Town and District.

...Petitioner AND

1. Maradana Sridevi, W/o. Maradana Krishna Murthy, Aged about 53 years, Household duties, R/o.D.No.4-4-5, Punyapu Street, Srikakulam Town and District.

2. Gunda Raghupathi Naidu, S/o. Kondayya, Aged about 52 years, Business, R/o. D.No.2-26, Kistappapeta Village, Srikakulam Mandalam and District.

...Respondents Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased withdraw the O.S. No.32/2024 on the file of the II Additional District Court Srikakulam and to transfer the same to the Principal District Judge, Srikakulam to be tried along with E.A.

No.377/24 in E.P. No.61/2022 in O.S. No.116/2018.

IA No.1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No.61/2022 in O.S. No.116/2018 including confirmation of delivery on the file of the Principal District Court Srikakulam, pending disposal of the TRCMP.

Counsel for the Petitioner : ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : P. VEERRAJU The Court made the following

ORDER:

Burra Bhargav filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.'), seeking to withdraw O.S. No.32 of 2024 from the file of the II Additional District Court, Srikakulam, and transfer it to the file of the Principal District Court, Srikakulam, to be tried along with E.A. No.377 of 2024 in E.P. No.61 of 2022 in O.S.

No.116 of 2018.

2. I have heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Veerraju, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Notice was served on respondent No.2, but no one appeared for respondent No.2.

Factual Matrix:

3. Respondent No.1 filed O.S. No.116 of 2018 against respondent No.2, seeking recovery of money. The Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition E.P. No.61 of 2022 before the Principal District Court, Srikakulam, to execute the decree. The property scheduled under the E.P. was attached and sold at a court auction. Respondent No.1 became the highest bidder and participated with the Court's permission. The Court issued a sale certificate. The scheduled property was brought up for delivery. The petitioner then filed E.A. No.377 of 2024, claiming a right over the schedule property on the ground that respondent No.2 sold it to him in 2021. While these proceedings were pending, respondent No.2 instituted O.S. No.32 of 2024 against respondent No.1 and the petitioner, seeking a declaration that the sale certificate affecting his property is null and void, and consequently seeking an injunction to prevent respondent No.1 from interfering with his property and against respondent No.2/the petitioner herein.

4. Due to two parallel proceedings involving the same schedule property and parties, the petitioner seeks to withdraw O.S. No.32 of 2024 from the II Additional District and Sessions Court and transfer it to the Principal District Court, Srikakulam, to be heard together with E.A. No.377 of 2024.

Proceedings before this Court:

5. The Court ordered and served notice to the respondents. Only respondent No.1 appeared; respondent No.2 did not appear.

Petitioners case:

6. The petitioner claims respondent No.1 sold him the scheduled property in 2021 under a valid sale deed, giving him ownership. He asserts that, for effective adjudication,