G RAVINDER Vs. GOWRISETTY SURENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.L. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The Transfer CMP is filed to transfer O.S.No. 76 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to any court of competent jurisdiction at Hyderabad and pass such other suitable orders. Sri A.L. Raju, learned counsel representing the petitioner-defendant in the suit had taken me to the allegations made in the application filed in transfer CMP and had submitted that in a connected calendar case C.C.No. 175 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Karimnagar, during the cross-examination, the respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit had clearly stated that the transaction of lending amount of Rs. 6 lakhs on 1-1-1998 had taken place at his own flat which is situated at Hyderguda, Hyderabad. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the specific admission in the connected matter, it is clear that the transaction had taken place at Hyderabad and not at Karimnagar and the court at Karimnagar has no jurisdiction. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner-defendant is afraid of attending the court at Karimnagar inasmuch as there is a threat to his life also.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Ramesh Sagar, representing the respondent-plaintiff had submitted that a stray admission made in a criminal case cannot be taken as ground for the purpose of praying for transfer of a civil proceeding. The learned counsel further submitted that the money was lent on the strength of promissory note which was executed by the petitioner-defendant on 1-1-1998 at Karimnagar. The agreement was executed by the petition-defendant on 29-5-1998 admitting the earlier transaction which took place on 1-1-1998 and the suit was filed on the original transaction but not on the subsequent transaction and hence, at any rate the other evidence or admission referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not have much relevance in the said context. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Limited.