Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thupakula Venkateshwara Rao vs Shaik Imam Hussain on 20 January, 2023
Bench: A V Babu
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Tr.C.M.P. No.346 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the
petitioners against the respondents with a prayer to transfer O.S.
No.193 of 2019 from the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Guntur to the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur to
be tried along with O.S. No.102 of 2016 to avoid conflicting
judgments.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the deponent is
the first petitioner, who is authorized to depose on behalf of the
second petitioner. The second petitioner herein filed O.S. No.217 of
2015 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against
the first respondent and others to grant permanent injunction to
restrain the first respondent herein from interfering with the
property in the said suit. Subsequently, the first respondent
herein filed O.S. No.102 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Guntur seeking declaration of title and to grant
injunction in respect of suit property against the second petitioner
and respondent Nos.2 and 3. After the first respondent filed O.S.
No.102 of 2016, the second petitioner herein filed Tr.O.P.No.1391
of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge, Guntur to withdraw
AVRB,J
Tr.C.M.P.No.346/2022
O.S. No.217 of 2015 from the file of II Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Guntur and transfer the same to the Court of IV Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Guntur to conduct joint trial, which was
allowed on 16.12.2017 and accordingly O.S. No.217 of 2015 was
transferred to the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Guntur and renumbered as O.S. No.603 of 2018. So, both the
suits, as above, are pending for trial. Prior to filing of O.S. No.217
of 2015, the first petitioner herein filed a report which was the
subject matter in Crime No.20 of 2015 against the respondent
No.1 and seven others under Sections 143, 447 and 506 R/w.149
IPC. Police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet in C.C.
No.63 of 2015 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Guntur, which was ended in acquittal by judgment, dated
22.07.2016. Then, the first petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal
No.370 of 2017 before the IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Guntur and it was dismissed confirming the judgment of
the trial Court in C.C. No.63 of 2015 on 19.11.2018. After
acquittal of the said Calendar Case and after disposal of the
Criminal Appeal, filed by the first petitioner herein, first
respondent herein filed O.S. No.193 of 2019 seeking damages on
the ground of malicious prosecution pertaining to C.C No.63 of
2015. So, the petitioners filed Tr.O.P. No.1103 of 2019 against the
AVRB,J
Tr.C.M.P.No.346/2022
respondents herein on the file of Principal District Judge, Guntur
for withdrawing O.S. No.193 of 2019 from the file of II Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and transfer to the Court of IV
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for joint trial along with O.S.
No.102 of 2016 and O.S. No.603 of 2018. The learned Principal
District Judge, Guntur dismissed the same without proper reason.
If the suit in O.S. No.193 of 2019 is transferred to the Court of IV
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur no prejudice would be
caused. The said transfer is necessary to avoid conflicting
judgments. Hence, the Petition.
3. The first respondent got filed a counter resisting the prayer
on the ground that O.S. No.193 of 2019 has nothing to do with the
prayer in O.S. No.102 of 2016 and O.S. No.217 of 2015 and that
the Petition may be dismissed.
4. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether
O.S. No.193 of 2019 pending on the file of the Court of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Guntur is liable to be transferred to the Court
of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur?
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue according to
the averments in the affidavit enclosed to the Petition.
AVRB,J
Tr.C.M.P.No.346/2022
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued according to the
averments in the counter.
7. This Court has carefully looked into the enclosures to this
Petition. There is no dispute that the second petitioner herein filed
O.S. No.217 of 2015 in respect of the property therein seeking
permanent injunction against the defendants therein. There is also
no dispute that the first respondent herein filed O.S. No.102 of
2016 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. There is
also no dispute that according to the orders in Tr.O.P. No.1391 of
2016, the suit in O.S. No.217 of 2015 was withdrawn from the
Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and was
transferred to the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Guntur for joint trial. So, the thing is that both the suits i.e., O.S.
No.217 of 2015 (re-numbered as O.S. No.603 of 2018) and O.S.
No.102 of 2016 are title suits. Now, as seen from the copy of the
plaint in O.S. No.193 of 2019, the first respondent filed the same
alleging malicious prosecution in C.C. No.63 of 2015 and claiming
damages. Though the offences alleged in C.C. No.63 of 2015 are
under Sections 143, 447 and 506 R/w.149 IPC but the scope of
the suit in O.S. No.193 of 2019 is very limited. The scope of the
suit in O.S. No.193 of 2019 is as to whether there was malicious
AVRB,J
Tr.C.M.P.No.346/2022
prosecution in C.C. No.63 of 2015. So, the suit in O.S. No.193 of
2019 is filed claiming damages on the allegations of malicious
prosecution. It has nothing to do with the reliefs in O.S. No.217 of
2015 and O.S. No.102 of 2016. when the petitioners approached
the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur by filing Tr.O.P.
No.1103 of 2019, the learned Principal District Judge dismissed
the same. As evident from the orders therein, the learned District
Judge furnished proper reasons for dismissal of it. Even otherwise,
having regard to the copies of the plaints in the three suits and
looking after the scope of the suits, absolutely, the contention of
the petitioners that there is likelihood of conflicting judgments if
O.S. No.193 of 2019 is not transferred is not tenable. The prayer
in O.S. No.193 of 2019 is altogether different. Having regard to the
above, I see no reason at all to grant the relief.
8. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date : 20.01.2023
DSH
