THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.1039 of 2025

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 03.02.2025 in Transfer O.P.No.90 of 2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr.G. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner herein has filed Transfer O.P.No.90 of 2024 under Rule 63(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to transfer suit, viz., O.S.No.781 of 2022 pending on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally to the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally and to club the said suit for joint trial along with O.S.No.137 of

2024 (pending in the former Court).

4. Initially, the petitioner herein had filed the suit, viz., O.S.No.137 of 2024 under Section 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for declaration of title, mandatory and permanent injunction. Whereas, O.S.No.781 of 2022 is filed by respondent No.17 / plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against respondent No.19 / defendant seeking for a perpetual injunction.

5. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the above Transfer O.P. on the ground that the relief sought for in the above two suits are entirely different; and that the petitioner herein is not a party to the suit, viz., O.S.No.781 of 2022 which is pending on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally.

6. Upon due consideration of the facts and also considering the findings given by the Trial Court in the impugned order, this Court does not find any error committed by the Trial Court while refusing to club the two suits together, more particularly, when the nature of relief sought for and also the parties to the above two suits are entirely different.

7. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that no strong case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference to the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

8. As a consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J Date: 04.04.2025 Ndr