Telangana High Court
Smt. Maya Varma, vs Nagarla Vishnuvardhan, on 18 March, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
********
TR.C.M.P. No.51 OF 2025
Between :
Smt. Maya Varma, w/o. late Dr.Ramesh Kumar Varma,
Aged about 64 years, occu: Household, r/o.H.No.1-7-3/1,
Bansi Nivas, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district and
another.
...Petitioners
and
Nagarla Vishnuvardhan s/o. N.Narsimha, Aged about
52 years, occu: Pvt. Employee, r/o.H.no.1-1-73/4,
Budwel village, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district
and another.
.... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 18.03.2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the : Yes
fair copy of the Judgment ?
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.51 of 2025
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
+TR.C.M.P. No.51 OF 2025
%18.03.2025
Between:
# Smt. Maya Varma, w/o. late Dr.Ramesh Kumar Varma,
Aged about 64 years, occu: Household, r/o.H.No.1-7-3/1,
Bansi Nivas, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district and
another.
...Petitioners
and
$ Nagarla Vishnuvardhan s/o. N.Narsimha, Aged about
52 years, occu: Pvt. Employee, r/o.H.no.1-1-73/4,
Budwel village, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district
and two others.
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri R.Dheeraj Singh
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Ajay Kulkarni for
Respondent no.1
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1996 (2) ALT 372; 2003 (4) ALD 56 (DB); 93 CWN 119; (2020)19 SCC 80;
LNA, J
TrCMP.No.51 of 2025
3
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.51 of 2025
ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking
transfer of O.S.No.734 of 2020 from the file of the IV Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to the Court of
the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar, and to be tried together with O.S.No.872 of 2017.
2. Petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 3, respondent
No.1 herein is the plaintiff, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are the
defendant Nos.2 and 4 in O.S.No.734 of 2020.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein filed a
suit in O.S.No.734 of 2020 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for damages of Rs.23,00,000/- for
wrongful prosecution against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2
and 4 herein. Respondent No.1 herein has also filed another suit in
O.S.No.872 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge,
R.R. District for recovery of Rs.14,36,000/- and the parties in both the
suits are one and same and both suits are pending adjudication.
Petitioners herein filed an application vide Tr.O.P.No.86 of 2024 for
transfer of O.S.No.734 of 2020 on the file of IV Addl.Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar to be tried together with
LNA, J
O.S.No.872 of 2017 for proper adjudication of the case. However, the
said application was dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar vide order dated 02.01.2025
observing that issues to be decided in both the cases are different and
even consideration of the facts and issues are also different.
Therefore, the District Court was not inclined to allow the application
and accordingly, dismissed the application.
4. Heard Sri R.Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Ajay Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners had contended that both the
suits are interrelated and the cause of action and the nature of the
suits, parties and the witnesses in both the suits are one and the same.
Therefore, for convenience, both suits have to be tried together in
order to avoid conflicting decisions and, therefore, prayed this Court
to allow the transfer application.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had contended
that cause of action and reliefs sought in both the suits are different as
O.S.No.734 of 2020 is filed for damages and whereas O.S.No.872 of
2017 is filed for recovery of money. Learned counsel for respondent
No.1 has also taken objection to the maintainability of the present
LNA, J
application since similar application filed by the petitioners before
the District Court was already dismissed and, therefore, the
application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and thus,
liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that as per Section
24 of the CPC, both the District Court and the High Court have
jurisdiction to entertain transfer application, therefore, present
application is also maintainable notwithstanding dismissal of transfer
application by the District Court.
8. The learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the
following judgments in support of his contention:
i) K.V.Soorayya Chetty v. P.Dasaratha Naidu 1; and
ii) Munnangi Ramakrishna Rao v. Dr.Vanakuru Venkata Siva
Ramakrishna Prasad and others 2
9. In K.V.Soorayya Chetty (supra), learned single Judge of
erstwhile High Court of A.P., by referring to the language employed
in Section 24 of CPC, held that the District Court and High Court
have got same powers of transfer. Therefore, Tr.CMP filed in High
Court is maintainable even though similar application filed before the
District Court is dismissed.
1966 (2) ALT 372
2003 (4) ALD 56 (DB)
LNA, J
10. In Munnangi Ramakrishna Rao (supra), the Division Bench of
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had occasion to examine the
issue of maintainability of transfer application by an unsuccessful
party before the High Court, either under Section 115 of CPC or
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, without questioning
the order of dismissal of transfer petition by the District Court filed
by the same party. The Division Bench, by referring to the decision of
a Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Dipendu Nayek and others v.
State of West Bengal 3, has held as under:
"5. .... It is thus seen that both Patna and Calcutta High Courts have
also taken the view that an unsuccessful party before the District
Court can move a fresh application for the same purpose in the High
Court, which impliedly means that he need not question the order of
dismissal by the District Court either under Section 115 CPC or under
Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, we hold that a petition
under Section 24 CPC is maintainable even without the order of
dismissal of such petition by the District Court being questioned
either under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. The point is answered accordingly."
11. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of erstwhile
High Court of A.P., referred to above, fresh transfer application filed
before High Court is maintainable though the earlier application filed
by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Court.
93 CWN 119
LNA, J
12. Learned counsel for petitioners also placed reliance upon the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Santoshamma and another v.
D.Sarala and another 4, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at
paragraph-91 held as under:
"91. Since we have upheld the dismissal of Suit No. 92 of 1993 filed by
the appellant against Pratap Reddy, it is not really necessary to go into
the question of whether the said suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of
the Civil Procedure Code as contended by Mr Navare. It is true that, the
clubbing of suits for hearing them together and disposal thereof by a
common judgment and order is for practical reasons. Such clubbing
together of the suits does not convert the suits into one action as argued
by Mr Navare. The suits retain their separate identity as held
in Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram
Patel [Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel,
(2013) 4 SCC 404, para 41 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 636] . The clubbing
together is done for convenience, inter alia, to save time, costs, repetition
of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments."
13. It is relevant to note that all the suits in the above matters
pertains to specific performance of agreement of sale as well as suits
filed by the subsequent purchaser and therefore, the issues are
interconnected. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered for
clubbing of all the matters for convenience and also to save time,
costs, repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments.
However, in the present case, cause of action, reliefs sought are
(2020)19 SCC 80
LNA, J
different and also issues to be decided in both the suits are different
and therefore, judgment cited by the learned counsel for petitioners
has no application to the facts of the present case.
14. Coming to the facts of the present case, respondent No.1 filed a
suit in O.S.No.734 of 2020 for damages against the petitioners and
respondent Nos.2 & 4 herein and in the said suit, cause of action
shown as under:
"The cause of action for the present suit is arisen at
Rangareddy when on the day when the defendant No.1 to 3 at the
behest of the defendant no.4 as filed a false suit vide O.S.No.629 of
2011 before the Hon'ble 1st Addl.District Judge, R.R.District, and the
same was transferred to Hon'ble Principal District Judge at
L.B.Nagar, R.R. district, on administrative ground; on 10.10.2018
when O.S.No.629 of 2011 was dismissed for default; on 24.10.2019
I.A.No.2473/2018 U/s 5 of Limitation Act r/w Sect.151 of CPC to
condone delay of three days in filing the petition U/o 9 Rule IX CPC
and the same was also dismissed for the default; on 06.10.2020
when legal notice issued to all the defendants; on 08.10.2020 when
the legal notice served to the defendants; on 12.10.2020 when the
defendant No.1 & 3 gave an evasive reply to the legal notice dated
06.10.2020 and above stated facts and still continuing."
15. Respondent No.1 filed another suit in O.S.No.872 of 2017 for
recovery of sum of Rs.14,96,000/- and in the said suit, cause of action
has been shown as under:
"That the cause of action for filing of this suit arose on 15.06.2015
when the Hon'ble District Judge directed to file separate suit for
LNA, J
recovery of amount in E.A.No.155 of 2013 in E.P.No.156 of 2011 in
O.S.No.1047 of 2007."
16. In the light of above, the cause of action in both the suits is not
the same and even the reliefs sought in both the suits are also not the
same. It is relevant to note that suit in O.S.No.734 of 2020 is filed for
damages, whereas O.S.No.872 of 2017 is filed for recovery of money.
Therefore, the issues to be decided and evidence, witnesses to be
considered in both the suits will not be same. Further, cause of action
and reliefs sought in both the suits are not interdependent and,
therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the application
filed by the petitioners is misconceived and no grounds are made out
to entertain the application. The Tr.CMP fails and is accordingly,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:18.03.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked: Yes
(b/o.)
kkm
