2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3252

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ********

Between :

Smt. Maya Varma, w/o. late Dr.Ramesh Kumar Varma, Aged about 64 years, occu: Household, r/o.H.No.1-7-3/1, Bansi Nivas, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district and another.

…Petitioners and Nagarla Vishnuvardhan s/o. N.Narsimha, Aged about

52 years, occu: Pvt. Employee, r/o.H.no.1-1-73/4, Budwel village, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district and another.

…. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 18.03.2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the : Yes fair copy of the Judgment ?

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY +TR.C.M.P. No.51 OF 2025 %18.03.2025 Between:

# Smt. Maya Varma, w/o. late Dr.Ramesh Kumar Varma, Aged about 64 years, occu: Household, r/o.H.No.1-7-3/1, Bansi Nivas, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district and another.

…Petitioners and $ Nagarla Vishnuvardhan s/o. N.Narsimha, Aged about

52 years, occu: Pvt. Employee, r/o.H.no.1-1-73/4, Budwel village, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district and two others. …. Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri R.Dheeraj Singh Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Ajay Kulkarni for Respondent no.1

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1996 (2) ALT 372; 2003 (4) ALD 56 (DB); 93 CWN 119; (2020)19 SCC 80;

HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.51 of 2025

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of O.S.No.734 of 2020 from the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and to be tried together with O.S.No.872 of 2017.

2. Petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 3, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are the defendant Nos.2 and 4 in O.S.No.734 of 2020.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.734 of 2020 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for damages of Rs.23,00,000/- for wrongful prosecution against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 4 herein. Respondent No.1 herein has also filed another suit in O.S.No.872 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District for recovery of Rs.14,36,000/- and the parties in both the suits are one and same and both suits are pending adjudication. Petitioners herein filed an application vide Tr.O.P.No.86 of 2024 for transfer of O.S.No.734 of 2020 on the file of IV Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar to be tried together with O.S.No.872 of 2017 for proper adjudication of the case. However, the said application was dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar vide order dated 02.01.2025 observing that issues to be decided in both the cases are different and even consideration of the facts and issues are also different. Therefore, the District Court was not inclined to allow the application and accordingly, dismissed the application.

4. Heard Sri R.Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners had contended that both the suits are interrelated and the cause of action and the nature of the suits, parties and the witnesses in both the suits are one and the same. Therefore, for convenience, both suits have to be tried together in order to avoid conflicting decisions and, therefore, prayed this Court to allow the transfer application.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had contended that cause of action and reliefs sought in both the suits are different as O.S.No.734 of 2020 is filed for damages and whereas O.S.No.872 of 2017 is filed for recovery of money. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also taken objection to the maintainability of the present application since similar application filed by the petitioners before the District Court was already dismissed and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and thus, liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that as per Section 24 of the CPC, both the District Court and the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain transfer application, therefore, present application is also maintainable notwithstanding dismissal of transfer application by the District Court.

8. The learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention:

i) K.V.Soorayya Chetty v. P.Dasaratha Naidu1; and ii) Munnangi Ramakrishna Rao v. Dr.Vanakuru Venkata Siva Ramakrishna Prasad and others

9. In K.V.Soorayya Chetty (supra), learned single Judge of erstwhile High Court of A.P., by referring to the language employed in Section 24 of CPC, held that the District Court and High Court have got same powers of transfer. Therefore, Tr.CMP filed in High Court is maintainable even though similar application filed before the District Court is dismissed.

1 1966 (2) ALT 372

2 2003 (4) ALD 56 (DB)

10. In Munnangi Ramakrishna Rao (supra), the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had occasion to examine the issue of maintainability of transfer application by an unsuccessful party before the High Court, either under Section 115 of CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, without questioning the order of dismissal of transfer petition by the District Court filed by the same party. The Division Bench, by referring to the decision of a Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Dipendu Nayek and others v.

State of West Bengal3, has held as under:

“5. …. It is thus seen that both Patna and Calcutta High Courts have also taken the view that an unsuccessful party before the District Court can move a fresh application for the same purpose in the High Court, which impliedly means that he need not question the order of dismissal by the District Court either under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, we hold that a petition under Section 24 CPC is maintainable even without the order of dismissal of such petition by the District Court being questioned either under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The point is answered accordingly.”

11. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P., referred to above, fresh transfer application filed before High Court is maintainable though the earlier application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Court.

3 93 CWN 119

12. Learned counsel for petitioners also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in B.Santoshamma and another v. D.Sarala and another4, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph-91 held as under:

“91. Since we have upheld the dismissal of Suit No. 92 of 1993 filed by the appellant against Pratap Reddy, it is not really necessary to go into the question of whether the said suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code as contended by Mr Navare. It is true that, the clubbing of suits for hearing them together and disposal thereof by a common judgment and order is for practical reasons. Such clubbing together of the suits does not convert the suits into one action as argued by Mr Navare. The suits retain their separate identity as held in Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel [Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel, (2013) 4 SCC 404, para 41 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 636] . The clubbing together is done for convenience, inter alia, to save time, costs, repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments.”

13. It is relevant to note that all the suits in the above matters pertains to specific performance of agreement of sale as well as suits filed by the subsequent purchaser and therefore, the issues are interconnected. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has ordered for clubbing of all the matters for convenience and also to save time, costs, repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments. However, in the present case, cause of action, reliefs sought are

4 (2020)19 SCC 80

different and also issues to be decided in both the suits are different and therefore, judgment cited by the learned counsel for petitioners has no application to the facts of the present case.

14. Coming to the facts of the present case, respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.734 of 2020 for damages against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 & 4 herein and in the said suit, cause of action shown as under:

“The cause of action for the present suit is arisen at Rangareddy when on the day when the defendant No.1 to 3 at the behest of the defendant no.4 as filed a false suit vide O.S.No.629 of 2011 before the Hon’ble 1st Addl.District Judge, R.R.District, and the same was transferred to Hon’ble Principal District Judge at L.B.Nagar, R.R. district, on administrative ground; on 10.10.2018 when O.S.No.629 of 2011 was dismissed for default; on 24.10.2019 I.A.No.2473/2018 U/s 5 of Limitation Act r/w Sect.151 of CPC to condone delay of three days in filing the petition U/o 9 Rule IX CPC and the same was also dismissed for the default; on 06.10.2020 when legal notice issued to all the defendants; on 08.10.2020 when the legal notice served to the defendants; on 12.10.2020 when the defendant No.1 & 3 gave an evasive reply to the legal notice dated

06.10.2020 and above stated facts and still continuing.”

15. Respondent No.1 filed another suit in O.S.No.872 of 2017 for recovery of sum of Rs.14,96,000/- and in the said suit, cause of action has been shown as under:

“That the cause of action for filing of this suit arose on 15.06.2015 when the Hon’ble District Judge directed to file separate suit for recovery of amount in E.A.No.155 of 2013 in E.P.No.156 of 2011 in O.S.No.1047 of 2007.”

16. In the light of above, the cause of action in both the suits is not the same and even the reliefs sought in both the suits are also not the same. It is relevant to note that suit in O.S.No.734 of 2020 is filed for damages, whereas O.S.No.872 of 2017 is filed for recovery of money. Therefore, the issues to be decided and evidence, witnesses to be considered in both the suits will not be same. Further, cause of action and reliefs sought in both the suits are not interdependent and, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the application filed by the petitioners is misconceived and no grounds are made out to entertain the application. The Tr.CMP fails and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:18.03.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked: Yes (b/o.)

kkm

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1996 (2) ALT 372; 2003 (4) ALD 56 (DB); 93 CWN 119; (2020)19 SCC 80;

HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.51 of 2025