THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.278 of 2019,
59 of 2020, 60 of 2020, 11 of 2021 and 16 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri
Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the respondents in
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.278 of 2019, 59 and 60 of 2020 as well as Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, learned counsel for the respondents in Tr.C.M.P.Nos.11 and 16 of 2021.
2. Since common arguments are addressed in all these matters, having regard to the similar nature of request, all of them are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Added to it, the petitioners are almost one and the same in all these matters.
4. Tr.C.M.P.No.278 of 2019 is filed to direct transfer of O.S.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, to the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid to be tried along with Creditor I.P.No.22 of 2018 on its file. Smt.Yerra Krishna Kumari, W/o Y.Satyanarayana and Sri Nadella Snehith S/o Rama Krishna are the petitioners in this Tr.C.M.P.
5. Sri Yerra Satyanarayana and Sri Nadella Snehith referred to above are the petitioners in Tr.C.M.P.No.59 of 2020 and also in Tr.C.M.P.No.60 of 2020.
2
6. Sri Yerra Satyanarayana referred to above, is the petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.11 of 2021 and Tr.C.M.P.No.16 of 2021. The respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.278 of 2019 is Gurrala Rama Krishna. Sri Chava Durga Rao is the 1st respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.59 and Tr.C.M.P.No.60 of 2020 as well as Tr.C.M.P.No.11 of 2021. Sri Garapati Sridhar Chakravarthi is the 2nd respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.59 of 2020 and 2nd respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.11 and 16 of 2021.
7. Sri Nekkalapu Krishna is the 2nd respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.60 of 2020 and Sri Nekkalapu Murali Krishna is the 1st respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.16 of 2021.
8. The claims preferred against the petitioners in all these Tr.C.M.Ps by the respective respondents involve many transactions either in the nature of the suits or creditors petitions under Provincial Insolvency Act.
9. The petitioners are requesting to get all the matters pending against them either in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvidu or at Eluru or at Nuzvid to be brought to one Court. The reason assigned by them is that all these matters are machinations of son-in-law of Sri Yerra Satyanarayana and Smt.Krishna Kumari and upon fabrication of the documents concerned. The son-in-law of Sri Yerra Satyanarayana and his wife (who is none other than the daughter of Sri Satyanarayana and Krishna Kumari) are not the parties to any of the suits or Creditor I.Ps.
3
10. The predominant contention of the petitioners in all these Tr.C.M.Ps is that the documents being made use of against them by the respondents were brought out at the instance of the aforestated individuals and therefore, in order to see that all these matters are disposed of by the same Court, to consider their defence, which is common and similar in all these matters, they sought that their request be accepted.
11. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel elaborating on the material and circumstances in essence, requests to pass necessary orders, while pointing out that consideration of all these matters together by one Court would facilitate adjudication in proper perspective and which is in the interest of justice.
12. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that in as much as the facts concerned to all these cases and evidence to let in, necessarily get overlapped, this course is appropriate and whereby the respondents would not suffer any prejudice.
13. Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri and Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, learned counsel for the respondents seriously opposed this request of the petitioners, pointing out that to facilitate defence of the petitioners, the proposed request need not be accepted.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that in case the creditor petitions filed under Provincial Insolvency Act are transferred to the Court of a District Judge, the parties loose a substantive right of appeal causing any amount of prejudice. Learned counsel further contended that 4 causes of action in all these matters are distinct and separate basing on different transactions and therefore, the question of commonality in consideration cannot arise. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents contended that all these matters have to be considered and disposed of separately.
15. It is true that to enable the defence of the petitioners, there is no necessity to exercise discretion in terms of Section 24 C.P.C at their instance. At the same time, the nature of evidence to be let in, in the matters, in view of disputed facts in these cases needs consideration. In the sense, having regard to the defence set up by the petitioners, the evidence to be let in, in all these mattes shall necessarily be one and the same. If any oral evidence is let in by the petitioners, the nature and tenor of cross examination of the witnesses to be examined by either party should be on the same lines and cannot be different. This factor is a positive circumstance to favour the petitioners. There is no dispute that the plaints or petitions in all these matters set out different causes of action. It is also true that in case of transfer of insolvency petitions to a District Court, possibility of unsuccessful party loosing a right of appeal is foreseen.
16. However, the consideration of the material and the evidence in all these matters by different Courts apparently remains one and the same. If these matters are tried by different courts, there is possibility of recording conflicting findings due to different manner of appreciation of the material including evidence. This factor assumes greater importance 5 particularly, from point of view of prejudice to suffer by both the parties. Eventually, not only the petitioners but also the respondents in all these matters suffer immensely. Therefore, it is always desirable to bring all these matters under one umbrella namely one of the competent Courts, which has jurisdiction to try all these matters.
17. Therefore, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances referred to above, particularly, to see that none of the parties suffer any prejudice in conduct of these matters, it is desirable to allow the Tr.C.M.P.Nos.278 of 2019, 11 and 16 of 2021, as prayed for.
18. It is also brought to the notice of this Court at the Bar by the learned counsel that the distance between Nuzvid of Krishna District and Eluru of West Godavari District is about 35 kms. Therefore, production of witnesses if any, to be examined in the course of these proceedings will not be difficult for either party.
19. In the course of hearing, Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the effect of Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, whereby, the parties to an insolvency petition have a right to approach this Court in certain circumstances, where Section 4 of the said Act is applicable in an appeal, against the decision of the District Court in first appeal. In view of this situation and having regard to the scope of consideration of an insolvency petition, when the Insolvency Court is of limited jurisdiction, the request of the petitioners in Tr.C.M.P.Nos.59 and 60 of 2020 is difficult to accede. The relief 6 sought in these Tr.C.M.Ps. is for transfer of creditor insolvency petitions pending on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge at Nuzvid on to the file of the Additional District Court at Nuzvid. In the circumstances stated above, the requests in these Tr.C.M.Ps needs rejection.
20. On behalf of the respondents, Reddy's Laboratores Limited v. Pulletikurthi Varaha Chandra Bose1 and Muthe Rajesham v. Bakam Lingaiah2, are relied on. The legal position considered in these two rulings is not at all in dispute. However, facts in all the cases concerned, have to be looked into, to apply such proposition.
21. In the result, Tr.C.M.P.No.278 of 2019 is allowed directing withdrawal of O.S.No.14 of 2019 now pending on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru and is transferred on to the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District, for disposal in accordance with law.
22. In the result, Tr.C.M.P.No.16 of 2021 is allowed directing withdrawal of O.S.No.5 of 2019 now pending on the file of the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District and is transferred on to the file of the Court of learned XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District, for disposal in accordance with law 1 2004(5)ALT 209 2 2015(3) ALT 322 7
23. Tr.C.M.P.No.11 of 2021 is allowed directing withdrawal of O.S.No.2 of 2018 from the file of the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Eluru and is transferred on to the file of the Court of learned XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District, for disposal in accordance with law.
24. Tr.C.M.P.Nos.59 and 60 of 2020 stand dismissed. The Court of learned XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid and the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid are directed to consider request if any made by any of the parties to dispose of all these matters in their respective Courts on the same day, though, by different judgments and conduct the trial or enquiry as the case may be, in all these matters on one and the same dates. No costs.
25. Since Tr.C.M.P.No.60 of 2020 is dismissed, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 filed therein stand closed.
26. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
27. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ M.VENKATA RAMANA, J Date: 17.02.2021 Pab