RAVIPATI JAGADESWARA RAO Vs. ATCHUTA SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under sections 22 and 24 Civil Procedure Code to transfer O.S. No. 57 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kavali to the file of the Agent (Collector's) Court at Khammam. The petitioners who are three in number are the defendants in O S. 57 of 1966. They seek the transfer of the suit to the Agent's Court at Khamam on the basis of the following allegations: The two respondents filed the suit O.S, No. 57 of 1966 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kavali on the foot of a promissory note dated 17th - April, 1963 for Rs. 11,200. The amount that was sought to be recovered was Rs. 10,078-70 Ps.

(2.) The suit promissory note was executed at Bayyavaram which is within the jurisdiction of the Agent's Court at Khammam. It was not true that the promissory note was executed at Yedavalli which is within the jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge's Court, Kavali nor was it true that the executant agreed to pay the promissory note debt at Yedavalli, The petitioners are residents Of Bayyavaram and the respondents also belong to Uppaka of Burgampad Taluk within two miles from Bayyavaram. The name of the second respondent is to be found in the electoral rolls of Uppaka village. The respondent wned a house in that village. Thus the suit ought to have been filed in the Agent's Court at Khammam. It was filed in the Kavali Court wantonly to create jurisdiction in the Kavali Court in order to drag the petitioners and their witnesses from Khammam area to far off Kavali to create obstacles in the way of the petitioners defence. Since the suit rightly lay in the Khammam Court, both the parties live in Khammam area and the entire evidence has to come from Khammam alone it would be most convenient for both the parties if the suit is tried by the Agent's Court, Khammam. If the suit is transferred to Khammam Court the respondents will not suffer any prejudice and the need for the petitioners to travel a distance of more than three hundred miles from Khammam to Kavali taking all the witnesses on several occasions involving heavy expenditure, waste of time and energy would be avoided.

(3.) It is on the other band contended for the respondents that though it is true that the promissory note was executed at Bayyavaram near Khammam there was a definite agreement to pay the amount at Yedavalli within the jurisdiction of Kavali Court. There is, in fact a recital to that effect in the promissory note itself. The respondents are the residents of Yedavalli village which is within the jurisdiction of Kavali Court. It is only for business purposes they go to Bayyavaram and the neighbouring villages for a few days in an year. Though it is true that they own a house at Uppakka near Khammam they purchased it only for their temporary stay and use. It is, therefore, not convenient for them to conduct the suit in Khammam Court. Though it is not raised in the counter affidavit of the respondents, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has also raised before me a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the transfer petition in the High Court and as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to transfer a suit from a Court in outside area to an Agency Court. It is his contention that the Civil Procedure Code does not confer such a power of transfer on the High Court.