Miscellaneous Petition No. 525 of 2024 · High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support oi thc petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeclings in O.S.No.340 of 20L3 on ttre file of the Court of Hon'ble XV Additional District and Session Judge, at Ibrahimpatnam, pending the above Transfer Civi[ Miscellaneous Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N,l.V-Durga Prasad Counsel for the Responclents: -- The Court rnade the follorving: ORDER t I i THE HONOURABLE SMT WSTICE K. SUJANA Tr.C.M.P.No. 525 of 2o24 ORAL ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is hled under Section24oftheCivilProcedureCode,lg08(forshortCPCJ seeking transfer of O.S.No.34O of 2013 pending on the hle of the XVAdditionalDistrictandSessionsCourt,atlbrahimpatnam'to t}refileoftheXllAdditionalDistrictandSessionsJrrdge,at RangareddY District, at LB Nagar'

2. Heard Sri B.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed belore this Court a 3. copy of order passed by another bench of this Oourt in CRP.Nos.3848and3857of2024dated20.l2.2o24andsubmitted that it was ,:bserved therein that 'in order to auoid furtter administratiue complications of similar praAers being nade bg similarly ptaced persons, it toould rattter serue the interest of justice' if the presidirtg officer uln is nout in-charge of XV Additional Distnct Judge, i.s directed to take up OS.No'1O of 2O12 and OS'No'1153 of 2008 on pioitg bo.sis and- ensure that the suits artt concluded at tte earliest, afier heaing a the parties to the dispute: Since onlg final arguments to be mad.e, let tlw entire suit itself be heard anti decided 2 SKS,J Tr.C.M-P.No-525 of 2024 tlithin an outer timit of ninety (9O) dags from the nert dab of heanng'. Therefore, he averred that he would conhne his prayer to the extent of issuing similar direction to the trial Court' In view of the order dated 20'12'2O24 passed by anottrer 4. Bench of this Court in CRP.Nos.3848 and 3857 of 2024 and on considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the XV Additional District and Sessions Court' at Ibrahimpatnam, is directed to take up O'S'No'3ztO of 2O13 on priority basis and ensure that the same is concluded at the earliest, after hearing all the parties to the dispute' within an out€r limit of ninety (90) days from the next date of hearing' 5 With the above directions, this Tr'CMP', is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ASSI T Sd/- N. SRIHARI REGISTRAR E TION OFFICER To,

1. The XV Additional District and Sessior-r Judge, at Ibrahimpatnam 2. One CC to Sri M.V.Durga Prasacl, Aclvocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies (Along with copy of order dated 20."12.2024 in CRP.No.3848 &3857 of 2024.1 ICK/gh Rfr HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.525 ol2O24 I Disposing of the Tr.C.M.P. without cosLs (n- t;l-1 f ; Itl S 6 22 Fits o (J o t s c o '/r \-. ._:__-: lt9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTry Civil Revision Petition Nos.3848 & 3857 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: Heard Mr.J.Venudhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P.No.3848 of 2024, Mr.C.V.S.S.Deekghitulu, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P.No.3857 of 2024. Perused the material available on record.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.3848 of 2024 is filed assailing the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Tr.O.P.No.96 of 2O24. Civtl Revision Petition No.3857 of 2024 is frled assailing ttre order dated. 27.11.2O24 passed in Tr-O.P.No.9S of 2C)24 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. In both these revision petitions, the petitioners are the plaintiffs, they have frled a suit vide O.S.No. lO of 2Ol2 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and O.S.No.1153 of 2OO8 on the file of the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.

4. According to the learned counsei for the petitioners, the substantive part of hearing has already been concluded at the present place where the matter was being heard and the E 2 arguments were concluded and the matter was listed for the final orders to be passed by the concerned judge assigned of the matter i.e., XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

5. Meanwhile, a new court has been established i.e., the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam. Since the subject matter of the two suits was arising from the jurisdiction of the Ibrahimpatnam court, these two suits were ordered to be transferred to the XV Additional District Judge, Ibrahimpatnam.

6. The substantive grievance of the petitioner is ttrat since the major part of the proceedings including the frnal arguments all being heard at the court at L.B.Nagar, there was no reqlrirement for the matters to be at this stage transferred t,r the nr:w court u,here the entire arguments will have to be redone altogether again, which is going to further protract the proceedings. 7 . The further contention of the learned counsel for the parties are that as of now there is no regular presiding ofhcer posted as the XV Additional District Judge, th e XI Additional District Judge, at L,B.Nagar has been given the arlditional charge of the s;aid court and who visits the said court once in a u'eek u'hich is insufficient for taking up the routlne matl,ers also 3 and therefore there is no likelyhood of the two suits i.e., O.S.No.1O of 2Ol2 and O.S.No.1153 of 20O8, to get concluded in the near future.

8. It was in this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner moved a transfer O.P. petition before the Principal District Judge, seeking for retention of the files at Ranga Reddy District Court itself.

9. However, since one of the parties to the said suit have raised objection, tJre transfer O.P. petition rejected' It is this rejection of transfer O.P. which has been frled in the present civil revision petitions.

10. Upon due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of ttre case, considering the view of the learned District Judge while rejecting the transfer O.P. also frnding that there was one of the parties objected to the {iles being retained at Ranga Reddy Court, this Court does not hnd any error on fact or law committed by the judge in the passing of the irnpugned order.

11. Nonetheless, tJle two suits goes to show that both the suits are pending consideration before the trial court for more than a decade and in one of the suit is more than 15 years as the suit number is renumbered which was originally fiied in the year 4 1 /. 2006, tL,e proceedings in both the suits have also culminated and written ar6luments by both the parties have also been hled, in the said given factual circumstances, taking into consideration the administrative exigencies that have arisen and also the establishment of new court at Ibrahimpatnam which has become functional, though with an inch arge presiding offrcer, this Court of the opinion that in order to avoid further administrative complications of similar prayers being made by similarly placed persons, it would rather serve the interest of justice, if the presiding o{hcer who is now incharge of XV Additional District Judge, is directed to take up O.S.No.lO of 2Ol2 & O.S.No.1153 of 2OO8 on priority basis and ensure that the suits are concluded at the earli66t, after hearing a1l the parties to the dispute. Since only Iinal arguments to be made, let the entire suit itself be heard and decided within an outer limit of ninety (9O) davs from the next date of hearing. L2. With the aforesaid direction, these civil revision petitions are disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs Date 20.12.2O)1 AQS P.SAM KOSIIY, J