Yerra Satyanararyana vs Nekkalapu Murali Krishna
2021 Latest Caselaw 892 AP

        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.

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.

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

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

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

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

2004(5)ALT 209

2015(3) ALT 322

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