logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 APHC 1827 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 07 Of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Parties : Petitioner Versus Respondent
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ----- For the Respondent: -----
Date of Judgment : 09-12-2025
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 24 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

2. Catch Words:
- Transfer
- Jurisdiction
- Prima facie evidence

3. Summary:
The petitioners sought to withdraw and transfer RCC No.1 of 2023 filed before the Rent Controller‑cum‑Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, invoking Section 24 CPC. They alleged that the respondent, a practicing advocate in the same court, was causing hindrance due to abrasive behaviour. The court held that no prima facie evidence was produced to substantiate the allegation. Transfer under Section 24 requires a clear ground such as common cause of action or parties, which was absent. Consequently, the court directed the trial judge to dispose of the case within three months and dismissed the transfer petition. No costs were awarded.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. The petitioners herein filed the present petition under Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC), seeking to withdraw the R.C.C.No.1 of 2023, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty and transfer the same to Principal Junior Civil Judge Court whichever is nearby Rayachoty, for trial and disposal.

2. Heard both sides counsel on record.

3. As seen from the material available on record, the contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is their tenant in respect of the suit schedule premises; however, the respondent is denying the same, and he denied the jural relationship between both the parties, but the said aspect has to be decided by the concerned Court before whom the case is pending.

4. Necessity to transfer the suit or any other proceedings would arise only if there exists similarity of cause of action or commonality of the parties, and Section 24 of the CPC confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer the suit, appeal, or other proceedings at any stage, either on application by any party or suo motu. That discretionary power to transfer a case cannot be imprisoned within a straightjacket of any case, nor can it be confined to any formula or uniformly applicable standard. It cannot, again, be said that the power to transfer a case must be exercised without due care and caution.

5. The ground raised by the petitioner seeking transfer of R.C.C.No.1 of 2023, on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, to any other nearby Court at Rayachoty, is that the respondent herein is a practicing advocate at Rayachoty Court, and it causes hindrance due to her abrasive behavior. To prove the same no prima facie evidence is produced by the petitioner. The mere allegations without any prima facie evidence cannot be considered as a ground for considering the transfer of R.C.C.No.1 of 2023 from one place to another.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the case to some other Court, since an R.C.C. No. 01 of 2023 has been instituted before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty in the year 2023, therefore, it is desirable to direct the learned trial Judge to dispose of R.C.C. No. 1 of 2023 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and also directed to report the compliance to the Registrar (Judicial).

7. With these observations, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim Order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal