HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of O.P.No.54 of 2023 from the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri, to the Court of the Judge, MACT – Cum – VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P. are that the petitioner filed O.P.No.859 of 2015 on the file of the MACT – Cum – VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, against injuries received by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.10.2015 near Metro Bus Stop Uppal, and the same was transferred to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Malkajgiri and renumbered as O.P.No.106 of 2022 and pending for adjudication. Further, petitioner submits that he came to know that the said O.P. has already been transferred to the Court of Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri and re-numbered as O.P.No.54 of 2023 and is pending for adjudication.

3. The petitioner states that due to long distance and her ill-health she is not able to attend court proceeding in O.P.No.54 of 2023.

4. Heard Sri P. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the distance between L.B.Nagar and Malkajgiri is around 40 Kms and in view of the petitioner’s health condition and financial crisis, the petitioner cannot travel from L.B.Nagar to Malkajgiri.

6. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is seeking transfer of O.P.No.53 of 2023 from the file of Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri to the Court of the Judge, MACT – Cum – VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, on medical grounds. However, the petitioner has not filed any material in support of her contention. Further, it is relevant to note that the presence of the petitioner is not required on each and every date of hearing except the dates on which her evidence is recorded. It is also relevant to note that evidence can also be recorded through an Advocate Commissioner. The contention of the petitioner that due to her health condition and financial crisis she cannot travel from L.B.Nagar to Malkajgiri to attend the Court proceedings is untenable, devoid of any merit.

7. It is settled proposition of law that convenience of parties is prime criteria for transfer of a case from one Court to another and it must relate to convenience of both the parties. The Transfer Petition can also be entertained where two or more cases are pending between the same parties and where the issues are also substantially same and to avoid conflict of decisions.

8. The party who approaches the Court seeking relief of transfer of case from one Court to another Court must make- out a strong case for such transfer on valid, genuine grounds. 9. In the present case the reasons mentioned by the petitioner are Per se frivolous, untenable and filing of present application is nothing but abuse process of law and therefore the Transfer C.M.P is liable to be dismissed.

10. In the result, this Transfer C.M.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 27.03.2024.

Fm/dr