LAWS(APH)-2022-11-48

TALLURI SWATHI Vs. BATHINI VENKATESH

Decided On November 25, 2022
Talluri Swathi Appellant
V/S
Bathini Venkatesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant in Original Suit No.29 of 2018, on the file of learned XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, with a prayer to transfer the said case to the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur to be tried along with Original Suit No.371 of 2018, in the interest of justice.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, which is necessary to be extracted here, insofar as disposal of this petition is concerned is that the respondent filed O.S.No.29 of 2018, on the file of learned XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, against the present petitioner for recovery of amount on the strength of three promissory notes.

(3.) The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and contending in substance that in the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.371 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, he is shown as third defendant. O.S.No.29 of 2018 is pending before the XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopeta and O.S.No.371 of 2018 is pending before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur. Both the Courts are the subordinate to the District Court as per Sec. 3(a) of 24 of Code of Civil Procedure ("C.P.C." for short). Thus, the petition for transfer of O.S.No.29 of 2018 before this Court is not maintainable, as this type of petition has to be filed before the District Court at Guntur. He filed O.S.No.29 of 2018 for recovery of huge amount under the three promissory notes executed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement admitting about the execution of three promissory notes and passing of consideration thereunder. She took a plea that her husband prevailed upon her to execute these three promissory notes. Now, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the beneficiary of the promissory notes was someone else. She is dragging on the trial of the said suit of the respondent. Even she filed an application in I.A.No.86 of 2020 in O.S.No.29 of 2018 under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint and ultimately it is dismissed for default on 1/4/2022. She did not take any steps for its restoration. Now, the suit is part heard. Previously, she was set exparte for not proceeding with the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. Later, she got the same set aside by filing Interlocutory Application. Now, the matter is coming on 14/11/2022 for cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2.