IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITOIN NO.463 of 2025

9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 Between:

M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited and another …Petitioners and Smt. Amritha Mishra and 3 others …Respondents

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. Sathakarni. K, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Julakanti Venugopal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Perused the record.

2. The Tr.C.M.P is filed with a prayer to transfer and consolidate O.S.No.127 of 2016 pending on the file of the III Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar with O.S.No.947 of 2015 pending on the file of the XI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, O.S.No.219 of 2016 pending on the file of the XIV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and O.S.No.12 of 2017 pending on the file of the III Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to any one of the competent Courts where the suits are pending, for clubbing or consolidation with a direction to frame common issues and render a common judgment with separate decrees as warranted in law.

3. The respondents have filed counter opposing transfer.

4. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.127 of 2016 and defendants in O.S.Nos.947 of 2015, 219 of 2016 and

12 of 2017.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the suits stating that O.S.Nos.12 of 2017 (old O.S.No.1803 of 2015), 127 of 2016, 947 of 2015 and 219 of are at the stage of defendants evidence whereas O.S.No.143 of 2017 filed by respondent No.1 herein against respondent No.4 has been rejected on filing of a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. An appeal is preferred against said rejection before this Court by way of First Appeal. The learned counsel submitted that all the suits are at advanced stage of completion of recording of defendants evidence and therefore, clubbing said suits at this stage is not possible. However, the parties, the subject matter involved in all the suits are common and therefore, for any Presiding Officer to have wholistic view of the lis between the parties, there is a need for disposal of all the suits by one court. In that context, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, AIR 2004 SC 1687, Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited and others, MANU/SC/1446/2025 and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Gandodi Reddeppa v. Ayyala Krishnaveni, MANU/AP/1196/2004 for impressing upon transfer when there is substantial and sufficient similarity of issues arising in connected suits and common arguments need to be addressed. Further, reference is made to cross examination of the plaintiff (PW1) i.e. respondent No.1 herein in O.S.No.219 of 2016, wherein, it is admitted that there is no specific transaction between the plaintiff in O.S.No.219 of 2016 and the defendants i.e. petitioners herein, with respect to any particular property

but it was given in bulk and the defendants identified four properties that can be sold in lieu of the amounts forwarded.

6. On the basis of aforementioned citations and admissions made by plaintiff i.e. respondent herein in O.S.No.219 of 2016, transfer is sought.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition alleging that the transactions involved in all the suits are different and distinct, that already evidence has been recorded in all the suits and that the present Tr.C.M.P is filed only to protract the proceedings. It is alleged that in the guise of disposal of all the suits by one Court, an attempt will be made to stall the disposal of cases where the evidence is completed and the matters are at the stage of arguments. The learned counsel raised one objection to the transfer alleging that the rejection of O.S.No.143 of 2017 has rendered