JASTI VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. UPPALAPATI SUNILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners seek transfer of EA No.207 of 2002 in E.P.No.15 of 2002 in O.S.No.659 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada to the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to be clubbed and tried along with O.S.No.15 of 2002.

(2.) The facts that led to the filing of the transfer petition are that the 3rd respondent herein i.e., defendant in O.S. No. 15 of 2002 executed an agreement of sale dated 20.2.1993 in favour of the petitioners herein and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners gave Rs.6.00 lakhs in two instalments, at the rate of Rs.3.00 lakhs each, and the balance was only Rs.4.00 lakhs and they were prepared to pay the said amount also. Inspite of their readiness to pay the balance amount, the 3rd respondent was not executing a registered sale deed, as a result of which, the petitioners were constrained to file O.S.No.15 of 2002 and the same is pending on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, it came to light, according to the petitioners herein, that the first respondent herein filed O.S.No.659 of 1996 against the 3rd respondent herein basing on a promissory note dated 12.1.1992 and the same was decreed on 22.11.1999 and in execution thereof, the first respondent filed EP No. 160 of 2000 and the suit schedule property was attached and subsequently, in a Court auction, the same was purchased by the 2nd respondent, who is none other than the mother of the first respondent. At that juncture, in view of the developments, the petitioners herein were constrained to file E.A.No.321 of 2002 and the same is pending. Subsequently, for administrative convenience, the said EA and EP were transferred to the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and renumbered as EA.No.207 of 2002 in E.P.No.15 of 2002 in O.S.No.659 of 1996 and thus, the matter is pending before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

(3.) Now, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that when their suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale is pending, if the decree in O.S.No.659 of 1996 is executed, the very purpose of EA.No.207 of 2002 gets frustrated and further to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the same may be transferred to the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, where O.S.No.15 of 2002 is pending, so that the Court below after the oral and documentary evidence, that is going to be let-in in O.S.No.15 of 2002 and also in EA No.207 of 2002, can pass a just and equitable order, and, hence, they seek transfer of the said petition.