Currently Serving

Smt. Aruna Sarika

Special Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO ACT Chittoor

Prl District Courts, Chittoor · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Aruna Sarika, Special Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO ACT Chittoor, is posted at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 373 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles T, MVOP, OP cases.

373

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

T.R.O.P/269/2025

A.Krishna Kumari vs P.Bhanumathi

08 May 2026

APCH000010792025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present : - Smt.Aruna Sarika

Principal District Judge

Chittoor

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

Transfer O.P.No.269 of 2025

Between : -

A.Krishna Kumari, W/o A.Babu, Hindu aged about 58 years, r/o D.No.18-6-91, Sundaraiah Nagar, 4th Cross, Tirupati

....Petitioner

And : -

1. P.Bhanumathi, W/o P.Ramamoorthy, Hindu aged about 52 years, r/o Balaji Nagar, Greamspet, Chittoor

2. The Tahsildar, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District

3. The District Collector, Chittoor

....Respondents

This petition is coming on 30.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.A.P.Raghupathi,Advocate for the Respondent No.1, of Sri.V.R.Ramakrishna, Incharge Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

O R D E R

1)This is an Original Petition filed u/s.24 of Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 praying the court to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.530/2022 from the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.269/2025

and transfer the same to the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division) Court, Chittoor, either jointly or along with O.S.No.208/2017 pending on its file.

2)The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows: “The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.530/2022 before the II Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor against the 1st respondent for the

relief of declaration of right and title and said suit is coming up for framing of issues. The 1st respondent has earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.208/2017

before the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor against

the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein for the relief of permanent injunction and other reliefs. Later the said suit was transferred to the file of

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor on administrative ground, on 11.06.2025 and said suit is now coming up for 1st defendant’s evidence. The respondents 2 and 3 were shown as formal parties and the dispute is in between the petitioner and 1st respondent herein. At first, both the cases were tried by one court and as such the petitioner herein has filed a petition to club both the suits and to conduct joint trial and in the meantime this court has transferred the suit in O.S.No.208/2017 from the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor to the file of

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor on administrative grounds and the suit in O.S.No.530/2022 was kept pending on the file of II

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor. The subject matter,

the parties and the evidence and documents in both the suits is one and the same. If both the suits are tried independently, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and also conflicting judgments. In the said circumstances, it is necessary to transfer O.S.No.530/2022 from the file of

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor to the file of III

Page 2 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.269/2025

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor to avoid conflicting

judgments.” Hence, the petition.

3)The 1st respondent filed counter. The brief averments of the counter are : “The relief prayed in O.S.No.208/2017 is for grant of permanent injunction and the suit in O.S.No.530/2022 is for grant of declaration of right and title. The suit in O.S.No.208/2017 is coming up for defendant’s evidence since more than one year, but the petitioner did not choose to adduce evidence whereas the matter in O.S.No.530/2022 is coming up for framing of issues. The present petition is filed only to harass the 1st respondent. Since the stages of the cases and the reliefs are also different, conducting of joint trial is most unsustainable. There are no merits in this petition.” Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4)The respondents 2 and 3 filed counter. The brief averments of the counter are : “The present petition is filed at belated stage. The suit in

O.S.No.208/2017 is coming up for defendant’s evidence since more than

one year. This transfer petition is filed only with an intention of drag on the proceedings and to harass the respondents. The stage of the cases are different and the reliefs sought for are also different and so there are no grounds to consider this petition.” Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5)I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. Perused the material available on record.

6)Now the points for determination in this Original Petition are :

1. Whether the petitioner has made out valid and sufficient grounds to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.530/2022 from the file of II

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor and

transfer the same to the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor, to try either jointly or along with

O.S.No.208/2017 pending on its file, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

Page 3 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.269/2025

7)POINT No.1 : -

(a)It is the contention of the petitioner is that “The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.530/2022 before the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division) Court, Chittoor against the 1st respondent for the relief of declaration of right and title and said suit is coming up for framing of issues. The 1st respondent has earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.208/2017

before the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor against

the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein for the relief of permanent injunction and other reliefs. Later the said suit was transferred to the file of

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor on administrative grounds and the suit in O.S.No.530/2022 was kept pending on the file of II

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor. The subject matter,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor to the file of III

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor to avoid conflicting

judgments.” Per contra, the contention of the 1st respondent is that “The relief prayed in O.S.No.208/2017 is for grant of permanent injunction and

Page 4 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.269/2025

the suit in O.S.No.530/2022 is for grant of declaration of right and title. The suit in O.S.No.208/2017 is coming up for defendant’s evidence since more than one year, but the petitioner did not choose to adduce evidence whereas the matter in O.S.No.530/2022 is coming up for framing of issues. The present petition is filed only to harass the 1st respondent.

Since the stages of the cases and the reliefs are also different, conducting of joint trial is most unsustainable. There are no merits in this petition.” The contention of the respondents 2 and 3 is that “The present petition is filed at belated stage. The suit in O.S.No.208/2017 is coming up for defendant’s evidence since more than one year. This transfer petition is filed only with an intention of drag on the proceedings and to harass the respondents.

The stage of the cases are different and the reliefs sought for are also different and so there are no grounds to consider this petition.”

(b)I have given a detailed and thoughtful consideration to the pleadings, material on record and submission made by both parties. A perusal of the certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.530/2022 would show that the said suit was filed by the petitioner herein against the 1st respondent herein for the relief of declaration of right and title, delivery of vacant possession, etc. in respect of property in Sy.No.992/15A to an extent of

Ac.0.34 cents of Pulluru Revenue Village, Irala Mandal with specific boundaries. The certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.208/2017 would show that the said suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein for permanent injunction in respect of the property in Sy.No.992/15A to an extent of Ac.0.34 cents of

Pullur Gram Panchayat, Irala Mandal with specific boundaries. It is the contention of petitioner that the parties to both the suits and the property involved in both the suits are one and the same and so it is necessary to try both the suits by single court by conducting joint trial or to try along with

Page 5 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.269/2025

each other, otherwise there are chances of conflicting decisions. On the other hand, the respondents opposed the petition on the ground that the the relief sought for in both the suits are different, and there is no necessity to transfer the suit.

(c)In this context, it is relevant to refer the constitutional

Judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @

Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust 2008 (3)

SCC 659, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court set certain guidelines to consider a transfer application under Section 24 of CPC at para No.23 which is as under:

1. Balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses;

2. Convenience or Inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit;

3. Issues raised by the parties;

4. Reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending;

5. Important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation;

6. Interest of justice demanding for transfer of case etc.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the property involved in both the suits is one and the same and the parties are also same and if the said suits are tried separately in the respective courts, there is every chance of conflicting Judgments, and on that, both parties will suffer from the said decrees. On the other hand, the respondents’ only contention is that the reliefs are different and there is no chance of conducting joint trial and there is no necessity to transfer the suit. The learned counsel for respondents opposed the petition mainly on the point that the suit in

Page 6 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.269/2025

O.S.No.208/2017 is coming up for defendant’s evidence since one year

and only to protract the matter the present petition is filed. However, the petitioner contended that initially both the suits were filed before the II

Additinoal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor and the petitioner also filed a petition to club both the suits to conduct joint tiral, but at later stage, the suit in O.S.No.208/2017 was transferred from II Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor to the file of III Additonal Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor on administrative grounds. In view

of the same, the petitioner was constrained to file this petition to transfer

O.S.No.530/2022 also to the file of III Additinoal Civil Judge (Junior

Division) Court, Chittoor. Moreover, on perusal of the schedule in both the cases, it pertains to the land in Sy.No.992/15A to an extent of Ac.0.34 cents of Pullur Gram Panchayat, Irala Mandal, though the boundaries are shown different. Since, the suit in O.S.No.208/2017 is coming up for defendant’s evidence, whereas, the suit in O.S.No.530/2022 is still coming up for framing of issues, there is no chance of conducting joint trial.

Nevertheless, the suit in O.S.No.530/2022 is filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession which is comprehensive suit whereas the suit in

O.S.No.208/2017 is for bare injunction and both the suits are being

agitated for the same property. Then the points to be determined in both the suits would directly or indirectly are one and the same and in the said circumstances, if both the suits are tried in different courts, there is chance of conflicting decisions. In the given circumstances, the suit in

O.S.No.530/2022 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court, Chittoor is transferred to the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division) Court, Chittoor, where O.S.No.208/2017 is pending, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I have not seen any infirmities in the relief

Page 7 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.269/2025

sought by the petitioner for transfer of the case to one court. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion made supra, it follows that the petitioner has made out valid and sufficient grounds to grant relief of transfer of suit in O.S.No.530/2022 on the file of

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor to the file of III

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor, to try along with

suit in O.S.No.208/2017. Point No.1 is accordingly answered.

8)POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the petition is ALLOWED, without costs. The suit in

O.S.No.530/2022 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court, Chittoor is hereby WITHDRAWN from its file and TRANSFERRED to the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor to try along with the suit in O.S.No.208/2017. The learned II Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor is directed to transmit the entire record in

O.S.No.530/2022 pending on its file, to the file of learned III Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor, forthwith, by duly indexed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- ARUNA SARIKA

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor

Copy to :

1. The II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor

2. The III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Chittoor

Page 8 of 8

T.R.O.P/368/2025

Malluru Sheik Johar Basha vs Malluru Sheik Ahmed Basha

30 Apr 2026

APCH000014542025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present : - Smt.Aruna Sarika

Principal District Judge

Chittoor

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026

Transfer O.P.No.368 of 2025

Between : -

S.Johar Basha, S/o Late Sabjan, Muslim aged about 55 years, r/o Ponnutipalem, Madanapalle Mandal, Annamayya District

....Petitioner

And : -

1. Malluru Sheik Ahmed Basha, S/o Late Sabjan, Muslim aged about 55 years

2. Malluru Sheik Shada Bee, W/o Late Sabjan Sahib, Muslim aged about 80 years

3. Malluru Sheik Khaja Peer, S/o Late Sabjan Sahib, Muslim aged about 50 years

4. Malluru Sheik Dada Peer, S/o Late Sabjan Sahib, Muslim aged about 48 years (No.1 to 4 are r/o Chippili @ Kothapalle, H/o Ponnutipalem, Madanapalle Mandal, Annamayya District)

....Respondents

This petition is coming on 20.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.C.Gnana Sekhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.G.Vasantha Kumar, Sri.S.Rama Gopal Rao,Advocates for the Respondents, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR| TR.O.P.368/2025

O R D E R

1)This is an Original Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.924/2023 from the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Madanapalle and transfer the same to the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Court, Madanapalle, to try jointly with O.S.No.34/2011.

2)The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows: - “The grandfather of the petitioner herein namely Sheik Mohammed Ghouse Sab purchased the petition 2nd schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac.1.64 cents in Sy.No.115/1 of Ponnutipalem under registered sale deed dated 14.04.1952. After the demise of said Mohammed Ghouse Sab, his four sons namely Sabjan, Masthan Vali, Basha Vali and Azamathulla were entitled to 1/4th share each in the said property, along with other family properties. Out of the four sons, Masthan Valli and Basha Valli have executed a registered sale deed dated 17.06.1971 in favour of Sabjan (petitioner’s father) and thus the said Sabjan is entitled to 3/4th share and the remaining 1/4th share was with Azamathulla. The said Sabjan got five daughters and five sons and the daughters are married and they were given their respective shares and they relinquished their share in suit property and other family properties. The wife of Sabjan namely

Nazamunnissa and their five sons namely S.Mahaboob Basha,

S.Ahmmed Basha, S.Johar Basha (petitioner herein), S.Sanjar Vali and

S.Noor Ahmed became entitled to the suit property after the demise of

Sabjan, however, the entire properties were transferred to his wife

Nazamunnissa. On 29.09.2005, the 1st respondent Sheik Ahmed Basha executed an unregistered relinquishment deed in favour of Nazamunnissa for his share in respect of petition 2nd schedule property by receiving an amount of ₹5,000/-. Nazamunnissa and her two sons namely Mahaboob

Page 2 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR| TR.O.P.368/2025

Basha and Sanjar Vali executed registered gift settlement deed dated 13.11.2007 in favour of petitioner for their 3/4th share in the petition 2nd schedule property. On 25.10.2023, the petitioner’s brother Noor Ahammed and one of his sister S.Lahirunnissa executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of petitioner for their share. The mother of petitioner died on 30.10.2022. The petitioner obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in his name and he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

By suppressing the above facts, the 1st respondent has filed a suit in

O.S.No.34/2011 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court,

Madanapalle for the relief of partition of entire properties, though the petition 2nd schedule property belongs to the petitioner herein. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.924/2023 before the Principal Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Court, Madanapalle for permanent injunction for

the property in Sy.No.115/1 to an extent of Ac.1.64 cents. The suit filed by the respondents in O.S.No.34/2011 and the suit in O.S.No.924/2023 are relating to same properties and so the evidence to be adduced on behalf of both parties will be same. If the suits are tried by independently, there is every chance of conflicting judgments and the parties will be put to much loss and hardship. The petitioner is advised to file this petition for transfer of O.S.No.924/2023 from the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court, Madanapalle to the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Court, Madanapalle for joint trial along with O.S.No.34/2011 filed by the respondents.” Hence, the petition.

3)The respondents filed counter. The brief averments of the counter are : “The petitioner might have managed the revenue people for getting the records in respect of petition 2nd schedule property. The suit in

O.S.No.34/2011 was filed for partition for six items in different survey

numbers whereas, the suit in O.S.No.924/2023 was filed by the petitioner

Page 3 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR| TR.O.P.368/2025

against the respondents for permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.115/1 only. So, the question of conducting joint trial does not arise. The present petition is filed only to harass the respondents. There are no valid grounds to allow this petition.” Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4)I have heard the learned counsels for petitioner and respondents. Perused the material on record.

5)Now the points that arise for determination in this Original

Petition are as follows:-

1. Whether the petitioner has made out valid and sufficient grounds to transfer the suit in O.S.No.924/2023 from the file of Principal

Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Madanapalle to the file of

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Madanapalle to try

jointly with O.S.No.34/2011 pending on its file, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6)POINT No.1:-

(a)The contention of the petitioner is that “The grandfather of the petitioner herein namely Sheik Mohammed Ghouse Sab purchased the petition 2nd schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac.1.64 cents in

Sy.No.115/1 of Ponnutipalem under registered sale deed dated 14.04.1952. After the demise of said Mohammed Ghouse Sab, his four sons namely Sabjan, Masthan Vali, Basha Vali and Azamathulla were entitled to 1/4th share each in the said property, along with other family properties. Out of the four sons, Masthan Valli and Basha Valli have executed a registered sale deed dated 17.06.1971 in favour of Sabjan (petitioner’s father) and thus the said Sabjan is entitled to 3/4th share and the remaining 1/4th share was with Azamathulla. The said Sabjan got five daughters and five sons and the daughters are married and they were given their respective shares and they relinquished their share in suit property and other family properties. The wife of Sabjan namely

Nazamunnissa and their five sons namely S.Mahaboob Basha,

Page 4 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR| TR.O.P.368/2025

S.Ahmmed Basha, S.Johar Basha (petitioner herein), S.Sanjar Vali and

S.Noor Ahmed became entitled to the suit property after the demise of

Sabjan, however, the entire properties were transferred to his wife

By suppressing the above facts, the 1st respondent has filed a suit in

O.S.No.34/2011 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court,

Judge (Junior Division) Court, Madanapalle for permanent injunction for

Court, Madanapalle to the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Page 5 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR| TR.O.P.368/2025

Court, Madanapalle for joint trial along with O.S.No.34/2011 filed by the respondents.” Per contra, the respondents contended that “The petitioner might have managed the revenue people for getting the records in respect of petition 2nd schedule property. The suit in O.S.No.34/2011 was filed for partition for six items in different survey numbers whereas, the suit in

O.S.No.924/2023 was filed by the petitioner against the respondents for

permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.115/1 only. So, the question of conducting joint trial does not arise. The present petition is filed only to harass the respondents. There are no valid grounds to allow this petition.”

(b)I have given a detailed and thoughtful consideration to the above pleadings, material on record and submissions made by both parties. The petitioner has filed copies of plaints in O.S.No.924/2023 and also O.S.No.34/2011. A perusal of certified copy of plaint in

O.S.No.924/2023 would disclose that the petitioner herein filed the said

suit against the 2nd respondent herein for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of property situated in Sy.No.115-1 to an extent of Ac.1.64 cents of Ponnutipalem village, Madanapale Mandal. The certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.34/2011 would disclose that respondents herein filed the said suit against the petitioner herein and 11 others for the relief of partition and permanent injunction in respect of the properties under six items, which includes the land in Sy.No.115-1 to an extent of Ac.1.64 cents. The property shown in schedule in O.S.No.924/2023 is part of the schedule shown in O.S.No.34/2011. Thus, the schedule on one suit is part and parcel of schedule in another suit though the reliefs are different.

(c)In this context, it is relevant to refer the constitutional

Judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @

Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust 2008 (3)

SCC 659, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court set certain guidelines to

Page 6 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR| TR.O.P.368/2025

consider a transfer application under Section 24 of CPC at para No.23 which is as under:

1. Balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses;

2. Convenience or Inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit;

3. Issues raised by the parties;

4. Reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending;

5. Important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation;

6. Interest of justice demanding for transfer of case etc.”

(d)It is the contention of the petitioner that the parties to the suits are similar and the questions involved in both the suits are identical and the evidence to be adduced therein are also one and the same. It is the contention of the petitioner that if both the suits are tried separately in the respective courts, there is every chance of conflicting judgments, and on that both parties will suffer from the said decrees. Since the property involved in one suit is part of the property in another suit, and both the suits are title suits and if both the suits are not tried by one court, there is every possibility of multiplicity of litigation. On the other hand, the respondents filed counter contending that the suit in O.S.No.34/2011 filed by them is for partition whereas, the suit in O.S.No.924/2023 filed by the petitioner is for bare injunction. It is the further contention of the respondents that the petitioner filed suit for one item, whereas the respondents filed suit for six items, which includes the schedule property in O.S.No.924/2023. In view of the same, the clubbing both the suits and by conducting joint trial does not arise. A perusal of record would show that schedule mentioned in O.S.No.924/2023 is part of the schedule mentioned in O.S.No.34/2011 and also both suits are agitated between the similar parties, but not altogether same parties. So, the joint trial of both

Page 7 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR| TR.O.P.368/2025

the suits is not possible. Moreover, the reliefs sought for are also different.

The suit in O.S.No.34/2011 is filed for partition whereas, the suit in

O.S.No.924/2023 is filed for partition. In the said circumstances, though

joint trial is not possible, if both the suits are tried in one court, it would meet the ends of justice. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated supra, it follows that the petitioner has made out valid and sufficient grounds to grant relief of transfer of suit in O.S.No.924/2023 from the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Madanapalle to the file of

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Madanapalle to try

simultaneously along with O.S.No.34/2011. Point No.1 is accordingly answered.

7)POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the petition is ALLOWED, without costs. The suit in

O.S.No.924/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court, Madanapalle is hereby WITHDRAWN from its file and

TRANSFERRED to the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Court, Madanapalle to try along with the suit in O.S.No.34/2011. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle shall transmit the entire record in O.S.No.924/2023 pending on its file, to the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle, forthwith, by duly indexed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- ARUNA SARIKA

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor

Copy to :

1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Madanapalle

2. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Madanapalle

Page 8 of 8

T.R.CRLMP/1165/2025

Moosu Indiramma vs Marrimanu Narayanamma

28 Apr 2026

APCH000016002025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR

Present : - Smt.Aruna Sarika

Principal District & Sessions Judge

Chittoor

Tuesday, the 28th day of April, 2026

Transfer Crl.M.P.No.1165 of 2025

Between : -

1. Moosu Indiramma, W/o M.Gangi Reddy, 51 years

2. Moosu Mahesh Reddy, S/o M.Gangi Reddy, 33 years (Both are r/o Chinnakampalle village, H/o Parikidona village, Chowdepalle Mandal)

....Petitioners

And : -

1. Marrimanu Narayanamma, W/o Narayana, 48 years

2. Marrimanu Narayana, S/o Late Venkatramaiah, 64 years

3. Marrimanu Sreenivasulu, S/o Ramaiah, 41 years

4. Marrimanu Muralidhar @ Murali, S/o Narayana, 26 years

5. Yanugonda Gangarani, W/o Venkatramana, 42 years

6. Juttu Venkatramana, S/o Late Narasappa, 46 years (All are r/o Chinnakampalle village, H/o Parikidona village, Chowdepalle Mandal)

7. The Station House Officer, Chowdepalle Police Station, Chowdepalle

....Respondents

This petition is coming on 15.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Somasekhar, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri.P.M.M.K.Raju,Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 6, of

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.CRL.M.P.1165/2025

Sri.V.R.Ramakrishna, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.7, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

O R D E R

1)This Transfer Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners under Section 448 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to withdraw case in C.C.No.617/2022 from the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Punganur and transfer the same to the file of II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle to try along with

S.C.No.237/2023, in the interest of justice.

2)The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that : “The 1st petitioner is the defacto complainant and 2nd petitioner is the injured in Crime

No.73/2022 u/s.341, 143, 148, 324, 354-B, 506 of IPC wherein the respondents 1 to 6 are the accused. The said crime was numbered as

C.C.No.617/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court,

Punganur and coming up for examination. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the accused in Crime No.74/2022 u/s.302, 307, 324, 323, 506, 109 r/w 34 of

IPC which was numbered as S.C.No.237/2023 on the file of II Additional

District Judge, Madanapalle and the same is coming up for trial. Originally

the incident took place in Crime No.73/2022 at about 6.00 AM in which the 1st petitioner is the defacto complainant and on the same day at about 6.25

AM another incident took place in Crime No.74/2022 and both the incidents are related to each other. Though there is no fault on the part of the petitioners herein, the 7th respondent has registered a vexatious case in Crime No.74/2022 basing on the complaint of Marrimanu Gangadhara, who is the son of deceased Marrimanu Gurrappa. If the case in

C.C.No.617/2022 is tried in separate court there is every chance of getting different judgments and it will cause severe loss and hardship to the

Page 2 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.CRL.M.P.1165/2025

petitioners. The petitioners are not making any allegations against the

Presiding Officer and there is no grievance against the Presiding Officer of the court. In view of the above circumstances, it is necessary to transfer

C.C.No.617/2022 from the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur to the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle to conduct joint trial with S.C.No.237/2023.” Hence, the petition.

3)The learned Public Prosecutor reported no counter. The respondents 1 to 6 filed counter. The brief averments of the counter are :

“The petitioners are accused in S.C.No.237/2023 and they have every knowledge that two separate cases have been registered and pending different courts. But they have not taken any steps at the initial stage for transfer of the cases to one court. In the sessions case in

S.C.No.237/2023, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and the petitioners ought to have filed the present petition before commencement of trial. The petitioners are highly influential persons, financially sound and having political support whereas the respondents 1 to 6 belongs to weaker section and poor persons. The respondents 1 to 6 are residing at

Chinnakampalle village of Chowdepalle Mandal and if the case in

C.C.No.617/2022 is transferred to Madanapalle, they have to travel all the way about 50 kilometers to attend the court and also they have to engage another Advocate at Madanapalle to defend their case, which will be difficult for them both financially and physically. In order to conduct joint trial in both cases, another Public Prosecutor has to be appointed at

Madanapalle which would cause delay in conducting the trial. The offences charged in C.C.No.617/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Punganur are exclusively triable by Magistrate court only, whereas, the charges framed in S.C.No.237/2023 are exclusively triable by the

District and Sessions Judge. Hence, clubbing of both the cases and to

Page 3 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.CRL.M.P.1165/2025

conduct joint trial does not arise. The present petition is an attempt to prolong the trial.” Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4)I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

5)Now the points for determination in this petition are :

1. Whether the case in C.C.No.617/2022 pending on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur is required to be

withdrawn and transferred to the file of II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Madanapalle to try along with S.C.No.237/2023,

as prayed for?

2. To what order?

6)POINT No.1 : -

(a)It is the contention of petitioners that “The 1st petitioner is the defacto complainant and 2nd petitioner is the injured in Crime No.73/2022 u/s.341, 143, 148, 324, 354-B, 506 of IPC wherein the respondents 1 to 6 are the accused. The said crime was numbered as C.C.No.617/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Punganur and coming up for examination. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the accused in Crime No.74/2022 u/s.302, 307, 324, 323, 506, 109 r/w 34 of IPC which was numbered as

S.C.No.237/2023 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle and the same is coming up for trial. Originally the incident took place in

Crime No.73/2022 at about 6.00 AM in which the 1st petitioner is the defacto complainant and on the same day at about 6.25 AM another incident took place in Crime No.74/2022 and both the incidents are related to each other. Though there is no fault on the part of the petitioners herein, the 7th respondent has registered a vexatious case in Crime No.74/2022 basing on the complaint of Marrimanu Gangadhara, who is the son of

Page 4 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.CRL.M.P.1165/2025

deceased Marrimanu Gurrappa. If the case in C.C.No.617/2022 is tried in separate court there is every chance of getting different judgments and it will cause severe loss and hardship to the petitioners. The petitioners are not making any allegations against the Presiding Officer and there is no grievance against the Presiding Officer of the court. In view of the above circumstances, it is necessary to transfer C.C.No.617/2022 from the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur to the file of II Additional District

Judge, Madanapalle to conduct joint trial with S.C.No.237/2023.” Per

contra, the respondents 1 to 6 contended that “The petitioners are accused in S.C.No.237/2023 and they have every knowledge that two separate cases have been registered and pending different courts. But they have not taken any steps at the initial stage for transfer of the cases to one court. In the sessions case in S.C.No.237/2023, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and the petitioners ought to have filed the present petition

before commencement of trial. The petitioners are highly influential

persons, financially sound and having political support whereas the respondents 1 to 6 belongs to weaker section and poor persons. The respondents 1 to 6 are residing at Chinnakampalle village of Chowdepalle

Mandal and if the case in C.C.No.617/2022 is transferred to Madanapalle, they have to travel all the way about 50 kilometers to attend the court and also they have to engage another Advocate at Madanapalle to defend their case, which will be difficult for them both financially and physically. In order to conduct joint trial in both cases, another Public Prosecutor has to be appointed at Madanapalle which would cause delay in conducting the trial.

The offences charged in C.C.No.617/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur are exclusively triable by Magistrate court only, whereas, the charges framed in S.C.No.237/2023 are exclusively triable by the District and Sessions Judge. Hence, clubbing of both the cases and

Page 5 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.CRL.M.P.1165/2025

to conduct joint trial does not arise. The present petition is an attempt to prolong the trial.”

(b)I have given a detailed and thoughtful consideration to the pleadings, material available on record and submissions made by both parties. A perusal of the charge sheet in C.C.No.617/2022, it is evident that the incident in Crime No.73/2022 of Police Station, u/s.341, 143, 148, 324, 354-B, 506 of IPC occurred on 27.06.2022 at about 6.25 AM and the scene of offence is located near haystack, behind Narayanamma house,

Chinnakampalle village, H/o Parikidona, Chowdepalle Mandal. As per the charge sheet in Crime No.74/2022 the occurrence of offence was mentioned as on 27.06.2022 at about 6.00 AM behind the house of

Ramanaiah, Chinnakampalle village, H/o Parikidona, Chowdepalle

Mandal. A perusal of the record would clearly reveal that both the incidents occurred on the same day, time and place and also that the complainant in one case is accused in another case.

(c)The contention of the petitioners is that if both the cases are tried in different courts there will be conflicting decisions. At this stage it is necessary to refer the decision made in the case of State of A.P. Vs.

Mittapalle Sudhakar Reddy and others reported in Criminal Appeal

No.1115/2014, dated 17.02.2022 wherein their Lordships at Para-40 held as, “40. Therefore, when the fact of sustaining injuries or when the Investigating Officer is aware about a report being lodged by the accused against some of the prosecution witnesses, which is under investigation by him or by any other Officer or when the fact of counter case being registered, comes to light during the course of trial, every effort should be made by the investigating agency to see that both the cases are tried simultaneously one after the

Page 6 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.CRL.M.P.1165/2025

other to avoid miscarriage of justice and to avoid conflicting judgments and also to find out the genesis of the incident. As held earlier, even if one case is triable by Magistrate, there is no bar to get it tried along with the counter case triable by Court of Sessions. Apart from that, even the Courts, on coming to know about the pendency of a counter case, should make every effort to get it transferred, to be tried along with the counter case. No effort of such nature is made either by the investigating agency or even by the

Sessions Court when such fact came to its light. Ergo, it can

be said that prejudice which is inherent is caused to the accused, as true facts are not brought on record by the investigating agency.”

In the present case, a perusal of the record would show that both crimes arise out of the disputes occurred in same incident. Thus, when a crime occurred in between two parties and FIRs were registered in respect of those two crimes basing on the complaints given by those two parties against each other, obviously the witnesses to the scene of offence would definitely be common. There is some force in the contention raised by the petitioners for transferring the case in C.C.No.617/2022 from the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur, to the file of II Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, to try along with S.C.No.237/2023 for the

purpose of avoiding conflicting judgments in order to arrive at a just decision of the cases. Even though the respondents 1 to 6 filed counter and opposed the petition, but their contention is only that the present petition ought to have been filed at earlier stage and moreover, they opposed for conduct of joint trial since the trial in S.C.No.237/2023 was already commenced. Moreover, since the cases are different, one is triable by Magistrate and another is a sessions case, joint trial of both the cases is not practicably possible, however, they can be tried by one court which would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, in view of the facts and

Page 7 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.CRL.M.P.1165/2025

circumstances of the case, and the reasons stated supra, the case in

C.C.No.617/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur is permitted to withdraw and transfer the same to the file of II Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, to try along with

S.C.No.237/2023. Point No.1 is accordingly answered.

7)POINT No.2 :

In the result, the Petition is ALLOWED and the case in

C.C.No.617/2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Punganur is WITHDRAWN and

TRANSFERRED to the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Madanapalle, to try along with S.C.No.237/2023. The Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Punganur is directed to transmit the entire record in C.C.No.617/2022 to the file of II Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, forthwith, by duly indexing.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- ARUNA SARIKA

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor

Copy to :

1. The Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Punganur

2. The II Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Madanapalle

Page 8 of 8

T.R.O.P/202/2025

Vayyala Dayananda Reddy vs Gali Chalapathi Naidu

06 May 2026

APCH000008782025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present : - Smt.Aruna Sarika

Principal District Judge

Chittoor

Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026

Transfer O.P.No.202 of 2025

Between : -

1. Vayyala Dayananda Reddy, S/o Venkatamuni Reddy, Hindu aged about 54 years, r/o Thondamanadu village and post, Srikalahasti Mandal, Tirupati District; presently r/o Plot No.69, Maa Santhoshi Colony, Bolaram, Secunderabad – 500 010

2. Pengani Vasantha @ Vasanathamma, W/o P.Mohan Reddy, Hindu aged about 56 years, r/o Cherlopalle village, Kapugunneri post, Srikalahasti Mandal, Tirupati District; presently r/o No.36/1176/29, Gandlaveedhi, State Bank of India, Sullurpeta, Tirupati District

....Petitioners

And : -

1. Gali Chalapathy Naidu, S/o Late Srinivasulu Naidu, Hindu aged about 58 years, r/o Konathaneri village and post, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District

2. Gali Anasuyamma, W/o Late Srinivasulu Naidu, Hindu aged about 75 years, r/o Konathaneri village and post, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District

....Respondents

This petition is coming on 16.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri.K.Suresh,Advocate for the Respondents, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.202/2025

O R D E R

1)This is an Original Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.328/2024 from the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Srikalahasti and transfer the same to the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court,

Srikalahasti, to try along with O.S.No.36/2024 for joint trial.

2)The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows: - “The petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.36/2024 before the Civil

Judge (Senior Division) Court, Srikalahasti against the respondents herein

for declaration of title of 1st plaintiff (1st petitioner herein) over the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and declaring the title of 2nd plaintiff (2nd petitioner herein) over the suit ‘C’ schedule property and consequently grant permanent injunction and the said suit is coming up for framing of issues. The respondents herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.328/2024

before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Srikalahasti

against the petitioners herein for grant of permanent injunction in respect of properties which includes the properties covered in O.S.No.36/2024.

The said suit is coming up for conciliation under Section 89 CPC. The properties as well as the parties covered in both the suits are one and the same, the documents and evidence to be adduced by both parties are also common in both the suits. If both the suits are tried independently, it leads to multiplicity of proceedings and also conflict of judgments. The suit in O.S.No.36/2024 is a comprehensive suit and so it is necessary to to transfer O.S.No.328/2024 from the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior

Division) Court, Srikalahasti to the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Court, Srikalahasti to try along with O.S.No.36/2024.” Hence, the petition.

Page 2 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.202/2025

3)The 1st respondent filed counter and the 2nd respondent filed memo adopting the counter filed by the 1st respondent. The brief averments of the petition are : “The relief claimed in both the suits are not one and the same. The petitioners filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction for house plots whereas, the suit filed by the respondents is for permanent injunction over agricultural land. The description of the property in both the suits is not one and the same. The petitioners are not entitled to seek transfer of the suit in O.S.No.328/2024 from the file of Principal

Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Srikalahasti to the file of Civil Judge

(Senior Division) Court, Srikalahasti. As per Section 24 CPC, this court has no power to order joint trial of the suits and the present petition is untenable and not maintainable in law.” Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4)I have heard the learned counsels for petitioners and respondents. Perused the material on record.

5)Now the points that arise for determination in this Original

Petition are as follows:-

1. Whether the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to transfer the suit in O.S.No.328/2024 from the file of

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Srikalahasti to the

file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Srikalahasti to try along with O.S.No.36/2024 for joint trial, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6)POINT No.1:-

(a)The contention of the petitioners is that “The petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.36/2024 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Court, Srikalahasti against the respondents herein for declaration of title of 1st plaintiff (1st petitioner herein) over the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule

Page 3 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.202/2025

properties and declaring the title of 2nd plaintiff (2nd petitioner herein) over the suit ‘C’ schedule property and consequently grant permanent injunction and the said suit is coming up for framing of issues. The respondents herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.328/2024 before the

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Srikalahasti against the

petitioners herein for grant of permanent injunction in respect of properties which includes the properties covered in O.S.No.36/2024. The said suit is coming up for conciliation under Section 89 CPC. The properties as well as the parties covered in both the suits are one and the same, the documents and evidence to be adduced by both parties are also common in both the suits. If both the suits are tried independently, it leads to multiplicity of proceedings and also conflict of judgments. The suit in

O.S.No.36/2024 is a comprehensive suit and so it is necessary to to

transfer O.S.No.328/2024 from the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior

Division) Court, Srikalahasti to the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Court, Srikalahasti to try along with O.S.No.36/2024.” Per contra, the respondents contended that “The relief claimed in both the suits are not one and the same. The petitioners filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction for house plots whereas, the suit filed by the respondents is for permanent injunction over agricultural land. The description of the property in both the suits is not one and the same. The petitioners are not entitled to seek transfer of the suit in O.S.No.328/2024 from the file of Principal

Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Srikalahasti to the file of Civil Judge

(Senior Division) Court, Srikalahasti. As per Section 24 CPC, this court has no power to order joint trial of the suits and the present petition is untenable and not maintainable in law.”

(b)I have given a detailed and thoughtful consideration to the above pleadings, material on record and submissions made by both

Page 4 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.202/2025

parties. The petitioners have filed copies of plaints in O.S.No.328/2024 and also O.S.No.36/2024. A perusal of certified copy of plaint in

O.S.No.328/2024 would disclose that the respondents herein have filed

the said suit against the petitioners herein for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of properties in Sy.No.112/4B1 (previously 112/4) to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents, Sy.No.112/5C (previously 112/5) to an extent of

Ac.0.27 cents and Sy.No.112/6A (previously 112/6) to an extent of Ac.0.18 cents in total Ac.0.47 cents with common boundaries. The certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.36/2024 would disclose that the petitioners herein have filed the said suit against the respondents herein for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the properties shown under ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedules. The properties shown in schedule in O.S.No.328/2024 is also in respect of Sy.No.112/4B, 112/5B and 112/6B to an extent of Ac.0.15 cents each with separate boundaries for each item. Thus, the schedule on one suit is part and parcel of schedule in another suit though the reliefs are different.

(c)In this context, it is relevant to refer the constitutional

Judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @

Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust 2008 (3)

SCC 659, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court set certain guidelines to consider a transfer application under Section 24 of CPC at para No.23 which is as under:

“(i)Balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses;

(ii)Convenience or Inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit;

(iii)Issues raised by the parties;

Page 5 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.202/2025

(iv)Reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending;

(v)Important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation;

(vi)Interest of justice demanding for transfer of case etc.”

(d)It is the contention of the petitioners that the parties to the suits are same and the questions involved in both the suits are identical and the documents and evidence to be adduced are also one and the same. It is the contention of the petitioners that if both the suits are tried separately in the respective courts, there is every chance of conflicting judgments, and on that both parties will suffer from the said decrees.

Since the property involved in one suit is part of the property in another suit, and both the suits are title suits and if both the suits are not tried by one court, there is every possibility of multiplicity of litigation. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the description of the properties are different and the reliefs are also different and so there is no chance of conducting joint trial. A perusal of record would show that schedule properties in both the suits pertains to common survey numbers but with different extents and boundaries. Both suits are agitated between the same parties. Since the reliefs are different and description of properties are different, though relates to same survey numbers, the joint trial of both the suits is not possible. The suit in O.S.No.328/2024 is filed for permanent injunction whereas, the suit in O.S.No.36/2024 is filed for declaration of title. In the said circumstances, though joint trial is not possible, if both the suits are tried in one court, it would meet the ends of justice. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated supra, it follows that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to grant relief of transfer of suit in O.S.No.328/2024 from the file of Principal

Page 6 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.202/2025

Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Srikalahasti to the file of Civil Judge

(Senior Division) Court, Srikalahasti to try simultaneously along with

O.S.No.36/2024. Point No.1 is accordingly answered.

7)POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the petition is ALLOWED, without costs. The suit in

O.S.No.328/2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court, Srikalahasti is herebyWITHDRAWNfrom its file and

TRANSFERRED to the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court,

Srikalahasti to try along with the suit in O.S.No.36/2024. The learned

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti shall transmit the entire

record in O.S.No.328/2024 pending on its file, to the file of learned Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Srikalahasti, forthwith, by duly indexed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- ARUNA SARIKA

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor

Copy to :

1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Srikalahasti

2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Srikalahasti

Page 7 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.202/2025

Page 8 of 8

T.R.O.P/461/2025

N. Seshagiri Rao vs Ratakonda Kavitha

08 May 2026

APCH000017532025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present : - Smt.Aruna Sarika

Principal District Judge

Chittoor

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

Transfer O.P.No.461 of 2025

Between : -

N.Seshagiri Rao, S/o Venkaiah, Hindu aged about 47 years, r/o Annagaripalem village, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District

....Petitioner

And : -

1. Ratakonda Kavitha, W/o R.Madhusudhan, Hindu aged about 47 years, r/o Flat No.308, B-Block, Amogya Willow Tree Apartment, Upparapalle Cross, Tirupati

2. M.Babu, S/o Late Ramaiah, Hindu aged about 55 years, r/o D.No.19-15-70/3, Pragathi Nagar, Tirupati

3. M.Kumar, S/o M.Deenadayala Naidu, Hindu aged about 45 years, r/o D.No.19-15-70/6, Pragathi Nagar, Tirupati

4. G.Subramanyam, S/o G.Gopal, Hindu aged about 56 years, r/o D.No.6-88, Padmavathipuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati

....Respondents

This petition is coming on 16.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Majjiga Venkat Sai, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.R.Gajendra,Advocate for Respondent No.1, the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 remained exaprte, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

O R D E R

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.461/2025

1)This is an Original Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.958/2023 from the file of V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Tirupati and transfer the same to the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court,

Tirupati, to try jointly with O.S.No.22/2024 pending on its file.

2)The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows: - “The petitioner purchased Plot No.23 i.e., the petition schedule property under registered sale deed dated 13.06.2017 from M.Swarnalatha represented by her mother S.V.Subbamma/GPA Holder. After purchase, the petitioner constructed a shed in it and obtained property Assessment

No.1012044040 from Tirupati Municipal Corporation and door number 19- 15-70/7 was issued in the name of petitioner. The 1st respondent, though he has not right and title over the above said property, he has made attempt to dispossess the petitioner on 01.09.2023 and so the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.114/2023 before the Additional

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Tirupati against the vendor of

respondent seeking the relief of permanent injunction. As a counter-blast, the 1st respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.958/2023 before the V

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Tirupati against the

petitioner seeking permanent injunction by furnishing wrong boundaries.

Basing on the ad-interim injunction, the 1st respondent and his men forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from schedule property on 17.10.2023. In view of the same, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.22/2024

before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Tirupati against

Page 2 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.461/2025

order to avoid duplication of evidence and conflicting judgments, it is necessary that both the suits are tried jointly or separately by one court and at the same time. Even if the petition is allowed no prejudice will be caused to the respondents.” Hence, the petition.

3)The respondents 2 to 4 remained exparte. The 1st respondent took notice and also engaged counsel. The learned counsel for 1st respondent reported no counter.

4)I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the material on record.

5)Now the points that arise for determination in this Original

Petition are as follows:-

1. Whether the petitioner has made out valid and sufficient grounds to transfer the suit in O.S.No.958/2023 from the file of V

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Tirupati to the file

of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Tirupati to try jointly or along with O.S.No.22/2024 pending on its file, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6)POINT No.1:-

(a)The contention of the petitioner is that “The petitioner purchased Plot No.23 i.e., the petition schedule property under registered sale deed dated 13.06.2017 from M.Swarnalatha represented by her mother S.V.Subbamma/GPA Holder. After purchase, the petitioner constructed a shed in it and obtained property Assessment

Page 3 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.461/2025

was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.114/2023 before the Additional

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Tirupati against the vendor of

respondent seeking the relief of permanent injunction. As a counter-blast, the 1st respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.958/2023 before the V

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Tirupati against the

petitioner seeking permanent injunction by furnishing wrong boundaries.

before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Tirupati against

the 1st respondent and his vendor for delivery of possession. The property involved in both the suits with minor discrepancies regarding survey number and extent but the the subject matter is one and the same. The core issue to be decided in both the suits is possession of the property. In order to avoid duplication of evidence and conflicting judgments, it is necessary that both the suits are tried jointly or separately by one court and at the same time. Even if the petition is allowed no prejudice will be caused to the respondents.” On the other hand, the 1st respondent reported no counter. The respondents 2 to 4 remained exparte.

(b)I have given a detailed and thoughtful consideration to the above pleadings, material on record and submissions made by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed copies of plaints in O.S.No.958/2023 and also O.S.No.22/2024. A perusal of certified copy of plaint in

O.S.No.958/2023 would disclose that the 1st respondent herein filed the

said suit against the petitioner, respondents 2, 3 herein for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of property situated in Sy.No.2/1 Sub

Division as Sy.No.2/1A house bearing D.No.19-15-70/7 of Pragathinagar residential area, 19th Ward, Tirupati Urban Mandal with specific

Page 4 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.461/2025

boundaries. The certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.22/2024 would disclose that the petitioner herein has filed the said suit against the respondents 1 and 4 for the relief of delivery of vacant possession in respect of the property in Sy.No.2, Plot No.23 in which asbestos sheet roofed shed bearing D.No.19-15-70/7 of Pragathi Nagar, Ward No.19 of Tirupati Urban

Mandal. The property shown in both the suits is one and the same, with minor differences with regard to boundaries and extent.

(c)In this context, it is relevant to refer the constitutional

Judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @

Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust 2008 (3)

SCC 659, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court set certain guidelines to consider a transfer application under Section 24 of CPC at para No.23 which is as under:

1. Balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses;

2. Convenience or Inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit;

3. Issues raised by the parties;

4. Reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending;

5. Important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation;

6. Interest of justice demanding for transfer of case etc.”

Page 5 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.461/2025

that both parties will suffer from the said decrees. Since the property involved in one suit is the same property in another suit as reflected in the door number and other identity particulars, and both the suits are title suits and if both the suits are not tried by one court, there is every possibility of multiplicity of litigation. On the other hand, the 1st respondent reported no counter and the respondents 2 to 4 remained exparte. Though the petitioner has sought for the relief of transfer of suit and also for conducting of joint trial by clubbing both the suits, but the pleadings of the petitioner himself shows that the property involved in both the suits with minor discrepancies regarding survey number and extent but the the subject matter is one and the same. Furthermore, the parties in both the suits are not one and the same, but are similar. In view of the same, the clubbing both the suits and by conducting joint trial does not arise. In the said circumstances, though joint trial is not possible, if both the suits are tried in one court, it would meet the ends of justice. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated supra, it follows that the petitioner has made out valid and sufficient grounds to grant relief of transfer of suit in

O.S.No.958/2023 from the file of V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court, Tirupati to the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court,

Tirupati to try simultaneously along with O.S.No.22/2024. Point No.1 is accordingly answered.

7)POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the petition is ALLOWED, without costs. The suit in

O.S.No.958/2023 on the file of V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court, Tirupati is hereby WITHDRAWN from its file and TRANSFERRED to the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Tirupati to try along with the suit in O.S.No.22/2024. The learned V Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati shall transmit the entire record in

Page 6 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.461/2025

O.S.No.958/2023 pending on its file, to the file of learned Additional Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, forthwith, by duly indexed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- ARUNA SARIKA

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor

Copy to :

1. The V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Tirupati

2. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Tirupati

Page 7 of 8

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOOR | TR.O.P.461/2025

Page 8 of 8

Order Record 371 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
T.R.O.P/269/2025	A.Krishna Kumari vs P.Bhanumathi	08 May 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/461/2025	N. Seshagiri Rao vs Ratakonda Kavitha	08 May 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/202/2025	Vayyala Dayananda Reddy vs Gali Chalapathi Naidu	06 May 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/368/2025	Malluru Sheik Johar Basha vs Malluru Sheik Ahmed Basha	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
T.R.CRLMP/1165/2025	Moosu Indiramma vs Marrimanu Narayanamma	28 Apr 2026	Order	—
T.R.CRLMP/983/2025	R.Sai Roopa vs N.Venkata Sujith Kumar	23 Apr 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/270/2025	J.S.Bhanusekhar vs A.Ramu	21 Apr 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/376/2025	P. Yarrama REddy vs K. Suguna	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/377/2025	G. Usha vs G. Elumalai Reddy	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/276/2025	C.L.Gnanendra Kumar alias Kupendra vs Nil	07 Apr 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/279/2025	P.N.Sushma vs K.V.Gowtham Raj	06 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/60/2024	Muda Jawahar Babu S/o late M.Philips, Christian, Employee, aged about 32 years, residing at D. No.3 vs Manchala Pravalika D/o M.Jayanna, W/o M.Jawahar Babu, Christian, aged about 25 years, House wife, r	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/173/2025	C.Charan Kumar vs S.Aruna Kumari	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/276/2024	1. Chitiki Sudhakar Reddy S/o Venkatadri, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No. 2 vs Smt. Shaik Maimun w/o late Shaik Khader Sab, Muslim, aged about 81 years, residing at D.No. 12-78-5	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.CRLMP/1199/2025	Lokesh vs State, rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police for SC, ST Cell II, Tirupati	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.CRLMP/1216/2025	A.Eswari vs A.Rajendra	25 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/77/2025	Chinnaiah vs Smt. B. Mohana	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/100001/2025	K.R. Annaiah Reddy VJK vs A.Sunitha	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/1000011/2025	M/s.Shriram Finance Limited, Chittoor Branch rep. by is GPA Holder vs S. Bhanu Prakash	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
MVOP/311/2024	Boya Krishtanna alias Badedulla Kristanna vs Boya Yogeeswar, S/o Boya Anjinaiah, Hindu, aged about 24 years, residing at D.No. 1, K.Venkatapu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
MVOP/401/2024	K.Raghupathi- meera nair vs L.Sudhakar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
MVOP/402/2024	K.Vimala- adv meera nair vs L.Sudhakar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/45/2025	T.V. Naveen Kumar vs K.M. Kodandaiah	13 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/201/2025	Obulapuram Paramasiva Reddy vs Obulapuram Chandramma	13 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/274/2024	Kanumuri Hemalatha, W/o. Bhaskar Naidu, Hindu, aged 55 years, House wife. residing at Water Tank vs Vs1. R. Venkatadri, S/o. Late Yallaiah, Hindu, aged 62 years, Advocate, Aadhar No. 5036 2799 4707 and	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
AS/61/2024	G.Lakshminarasaiah, S/o late Gunisetty Penchalaiah, Hindu, aged about 57 years, r/at Kalupalle vill vs M.Chandra, S/o late Doraswamy Setty, Hindu, aged 57 years, r/at Kappalaveeraswamy Street, Oldpet, P	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OP/291/2025	P.Gayathri alias Santhi vs T.Parthasaradhi alias Thyagarajan	09 Mar 2026	Order	—
G.W.O.P/269/2022	P.Kesavulu, S/o P.Vasanthayya, Hindu, employee, aged about 41 years, residing at D.No. 66-81, Pulik vs Smt C.Lathamma alias Latha, W/o P.Kesavulu, Hindu, aged about 39 years, residing at Uttara Bramhana	09 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/130/2024	Sri Sundhara Rami Reddy, S/o late Pachappa Reddy, aged 76 years, retired MEI. r/at Athuru village, vs G.Raghu Rami Reddy, S/o late Pachappa Reddy, Hindu, aged about 69 years, cultivation, r/at 3-167	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/131/2024	Sri Sundhara Rami Reddy, S/o late Pachappa Reddy, aged 76 years, retired MEI. r/at Athuru village, vs G.Raghu Rami Reddy, S/o late Pachappa Reddy, Hindu, aged about 69 years, cultivation, r/at 3-167	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/203/2025	Tirumalasetti Srinivasulu vs Tirumalasetti Siva Kumari alias Kumari	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/286/2024	1. C.Subramanyam, S/o.Chinna Pullaiah, Christian, aged about 53 years, Church Paster residing at U vs B.Munirathnam Naidu, S/o.B.Munaswamy Naidu, Hindu, aged Tbout 72 years, coolie residing at Uppilipa	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/232/2025	P.Venkatarathnam Reddy vs M.Lakshmamma	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/257/2024	S. Gayaz Ahamad, Slo S. Dawood Saheb, aged about 55 years, Muslim, Business, residing at Dawood Sah vs Vs1. Smt S. Kashmunnisa, aged 54 years. Wio Ahamedulla Khan, Muslim House wife, residing at Gulzar Pe	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/248/2024	Yerrakkagari Chandra Sekhar Reddy Slo Y Venkataramana Reddy, aged about 52 years. Hindu, Cultivatio vs Vs1. Majjiga Krishnappa, Sto late Maggija Venkataramana, aged about 46 years, Hindu, cultivation, res	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/240/2023	K.Arun Kumar, S/o K.Thomas, Christian, aged 34 years, working as police constable, M.R. Palle polic vs A.Sai Keerthi alias Buala, W/o K.Arun Kumar,Christian, aged 23 years, house wife, residing at Pudi	26 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/334/2025	C.M.Pooja vs Nil	19 Feb 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/187/2025	B.Munirathnam Chetty vs B.Narasimhaswamy	19 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/197/2025	M.G.Simson alias M.G.Raj Kiran vs R.Kowsalya alias R.Mary Kowsalya	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/272/2024	1. G.Ramamoorthy S/O Late G.V.Narasimham, Hindu, aged about 59 years, business, (Aadhar No.7453 115 vs Vs1. Smt R.Kasi Ammal w/o Late L.Ramamoorthy, Hindu, aged about 78 years, Housewife, (Aadhar No.8639	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/273/2024	G.Ramamoorthy S/O Late G.V.Narasimham, Hindu, aged about 59 years, business, (Aadhar No.7453 115 vs Vs1. Smt R.Kasi Ammal w/o Late L.Ramamoorthy, Hindu, aged about 78 years, Housewife, (Aadhar No.8639	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/58/2024	Thanikonda Sobha, W/o T.Ramamoorthynaidu, aged 68 years, house wife, r/at flat No. 102, Srihan niva vs K.Ravi S/o K.Aiyalu Raju, Hindu, aged about 57 years, Business, residing at D.No.425, 9 Cross, H	17 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/299/2024	C.R.Satheesh, S/o Sri. Raja, Christian, Pvt Teacher, aged about 35 years, residing at 2-1196, Laksh vs M.R.Santhana Lakshmi W/o C.R.Satheesh, D/o J.Kantha Raju, aged about 33 years, Christian, Pvt Teach	13 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/209/2024	Kundavaram Jithin Kumar, S/o late Jaya Sampath Kumar, Christian, 36 years, daily wage earner, Rengu vs Kundavaram Vidya Priya, W/o Jithin Kumar, Christian, 33 years, D/o Endukuri Madhusudhana, Venugopal	12 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/92/2015	R. Doraswamy vs N. Maheswar Reddy	11 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
T.R.O.P/92/2024	Sangadram Shobha Rani, aged 31 years, W/o GV Rajesh, D/o Ayyakannu, r/at D.No. 5/77, Chinnagalndla vs Gokapai Venkata Rajesh, aged 32 years, r/at D.No. 4/291/1, B.C colony, Baireddipalle village and po	10 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/192/2025	Syed Sartaj vs Talari Chinnappa	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/380/2024	S.Josphen Mary vs G.Stephen	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/146/2025	K.Poornima vs A. Harish Kumar	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/196/2025	Obulannagari Balasubramanyam vs M.Sudar Raju	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
EP/100003/2024	Sudhakar Reddy vs K.Ganesh @ Ganeshan	30 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/153/2024	Kolaru Santhi w/o Kolaru Radhakrishna, Hindu, aged about 50 years, House-wife, residing at D.No.682 vs Vs1. P.Varada Pillai s/o Late Chengalraya Pillai, Hindu, about 85 years, cultivation, residing at	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/154/2024	Kolaru Santhi, w/O k.Radhakrishna, Hindu, aged 50 years, r/at D.No. 682, Kamati Street, Chinna Baza vs P.Varada Pillai s/o Late Chengalraya Pillal, Hindu, about 85 years, cultivation, residing at D.N	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/221/2025	C.Sunitha vs B.Gandhi Babu	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/273/2025	G.Subramanyam vs G.Pavana Kumari	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/297/2025	T.Ravichandra Alias Yacob vs M.Lavanya alias Yamini	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
S.O.P/151/2023	D.V. Sunil Kumar, S/o late Vasanth Kumar, aged 52 years, r/at D.No. 6-305, Bankers colony, Oldpe vs N.Sunil Raj, S/o late David, aged 50 years, r/at Agarbathi colony, Palamaner town, Post and mand	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/155/2025	S.Ayeesha Bee vs Shaik Alisher	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
CRLA/181/2024	M.Yashodha vs B.Mahesh Reddy,	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
T.R.O.P/302/2023	C.Sreeramulu Naidu, aged about 58 years, S/o late Munaswamy Naidu Hindus, cultivation, residing vs Smt C.Usha, aged about 36 years, w/o C.Ramesh, House-wife, Hindu, residing t Ragimanu Pattadi Vi	22 Jan 2026	Order	—
AS/16/2024	T.Vijaya, W/o T.balasubramanyam, D/o late B.Chengaiah, aged 63 years, r/at D.No. 19-4-236D, STV nag vs B.Bhaskar, S/o late B.Chengaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu R/at D.No.2-88, Nehru Street, Bangarupa	21 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
EP/100025/2024	D.Naseema vs Shriram General Insurance company Ltd.,	21 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.CRLMP/790/2025	T.K.Karthavaran vs Dhanammal-Died	21 Jan 2026	Order	—
G.W.O.P/394/2024	1.G.Roja w/o G.Nagamani vs Nil	20 Jan 2026	Order	—
AS/36/2024	P.C. Nagaratnamma, W/o late C.amanjulu, rtd head mistress, r/at D.No. 7-88, Santhapet, Aragonda roa vs S.Moghilamma, W/o not known, retired teacher, Diguvamagham village and post, Thavanampalle mandal,	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
AS/86/2017	Thulasamma vs Syed Shahanaj Bee	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CRLA/59/2024	D.Balu vs M.R.Premavathi	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
A.R.B.O.P/254/2024	S.Padmanabha Reddy, vs The District Collector, Chittoor	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/76/2025	Ananthamma vs Smt. T. Jayalakshmi	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/114/2023	Sub Inspector of Police vs Madduri Shiva Kumar	16 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/220/2024	The SHO of Gudupalli P.S. vs K. Lokesh	16 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/79/2025	The SHO of Kuppam P.S. vs K.S.Vijaya Kumar	09 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
T.R.O.P/304/2025	Revuru Leelamohan Prasad Sreenu vs Ravuru Vyshnavi	09 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/100004/2025	Smt. E. Haritha vs APSRTC rep by its Managing Director	08 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/339/2023	K.Abhijeeth, aged about 27 years, S/o K.V. Ramaan Murthy, unemployee, residing at D.No. 15-169, B.K vs R.Reshma, aged about 23 years, W/o K.Abhijeeth, D/o S.Sattar, residing at D.No. 11/348, 1st cross,	08 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/33/2025	N.Monish vs V.Jayaram Mandadi	07 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/39/2025	SHO VKOTA PS vs K.Balaji,	06 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
T.R.O.P/61/2025	S.Mithuh Karthik vs P.Jyothsna	06 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/34/2024	Inspector of police, Gudupalli vs H. Vinod Kumar	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
T.R.O.P/247/2024	1. Bandlapalli Ranga Reddy S/o B. Narayana Reddy, aged about 53 years, Hindus and living by lands a vs Bandlapalli Narasimha Reddy S/o B. Narayana Reddy, aged about 47 years, Hindu and living by land	05 Jan 2026	Order	—
T.R.O.P/195/2025	P.Sankaraiah Naidu vs V. Bhaskar Naidu	02 Jan 2026	Order	—
AS/16/2025	G.Gangaiah vs G.Ramamurthy	31 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OP/70/2025	N.Harish vs S.Parvin	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
T.R.CRLMP/231/2025	Smt N.Chengamma vs Thayyuru Devayani	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
T.R.O.P/85/2025	Smt. A. Kavitha vs V.Chandra Mouli	22 Dec 2025	Order	—
CMA/8/2025	T.Subramanyam Reddy vs T.Veerasani Srinivasulu	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/100013/2024	M/s. Shriram Finance Limited (formerly known as M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,) having it vs Vs1. M.P. Siva, S/o. M. Pichandi, Hindu, aged about 33 years, D. No.23-10, Sambalah Kandiga, Kongare	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/150/2024	Deepalle Jameema Royal, W/o D.Kishore Kumar, aged 40 years, house wife, Christian, D/o Y.M.M. Sudh vs D.Kishore Kumar, S/o Dorai Swamy, aged about 42 years, private job, r/at D.No. 12/130, Kotha Indlu,	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/277/2025	A.Vinod Kumar vs Nil	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/402/2023	Mohan.J, S/o Jayakanthan,J., Christian, aged about 41 years, private employe, residing at hostel, n vs Sunitha Parunadi, W/o Mohan, D/o Prakash, Christian, r/at D.NO. 16-09-317, Puppalagunta, Warrangal	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
G.W.O.P/122/2025	Mothkampalli Noorjahan-BCRR vs Vsnil	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
T.R.O.P/23/2025	Smt. LINGALA SNEHA REDDY vs Sri.GUNDLURU MOHAN REDDY	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
T.R.O.P/134/2024	C.H. Rajasekhar, S/o C.Vijayaraghavulu, aged 65 years, Hindu, rted employee, r/at D.No. 2-629, Sowk vs R.Vimal, S/o R.Rajendran, aged 33 years, r/at D.No. 2-250A, Readspet, K.R. Palle, Chittoor	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/100013/2024	M/s. Shriram Finance Limited (formerly known as M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,) having it vs Vs1. M.P. Siva, S/o. M. Pichandi, Hindu, aged about 33 years, D. No.23-10, Sambalah Kandiga, Kongare	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
MVOP/125/2025	G.Kesavulu vs Mallichetti Mahesh alias M.Mahesh	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
MVOP/194/2024	A.Venkatesu, S/o Appadorai, Hindu, aged about 54 years, coolie, deponent, residing at D.No. 25-450, vs C.Selvaraj, S/o Chinnakulandai, Hindu, aged not known to the petitioner, but major, residing at Val	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
MVOP/225/2016	Y.Chengalrayudu vs S.Prabhakaran	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
MVOP/230/2023	Chakuru Ravi , S/o C.Venkatesh, aged 35 years, Hindu, r/at D.No. 5-2, Mutharapalli village, K.Patna vs Mandla Naresh, S/o Mandla RAmana, aged 33 years, Hindu, r/at D.No. 1-78-A, Gundlapalle village a	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
MVOP/235/2024	A.Rajesh, S/o A.Ayyappa, Hindu, aged about 22 years, residing at D.No. 26-212, P.H. Colony, Iruvara vs N.Likith Kumar, S/o Nagaraj, Hindu, aged about 25 years, residing at D.No. 4/115, Main Road Eluv	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/43/2023	A.Rajendran, S/o Armugam, aged about 60 years, business, residing at D.No. 45, Kanngi Street, Na vs A.K. Murthy, S/o late A.Venkatramaiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, business, residing at D.No. 25/3	13 Dec 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 371 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		3
Apr 2026		8
Mar 2026		23
Feb 2026		16
Jan 2026		31
Dec 2025		44
Nov 2025		36
Oct 2025		35
Sep 2025		52
Aug 2025		37
Jul 2025		51
Jun 2025		25

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. Aruna Sarika handled?

Smt. Aruna Sarika has handled 373 court orders since 2025 at Prl District Courts, Chittoor. The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. Aruna Sarika hear?

Based on available records, Smt. Aruna Sarika primarily handles Civil matters (Original Petitions, Execution Petitions) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Where is Smt. Aruna Sarika currently posted?

Smt. Aruna Sarika is posted as Special Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO ACT Chittoor at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. Aruna Sarika available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt. Aruna Sarika are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. Aruna Sarika dispose cases?

Smt. Aruna Sarika disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 373 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Since when is Smt. Aruna Sarika serving?

Smt. Aruna Sarika has been serving at Prl District Courts, Chittoor since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

T 51%

MVOP 14%

OP 11%

EP 6%

AS 6%

CRLA 5%

SC 4%

A 4%

Posting History

May 2026 — Present

Special Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO ACT Chittoor
Apr 2025 — Present

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE · 373 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri K.Srinivasa Rao

I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Sri N.Sreenivasa Rao

VIII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

2 orders

Smt T. Haritha

VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Smt M.V.N. Padmaja

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

883 orders

K Ravi

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

75 orders

Ms. D. Uma Devi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,381 orders

Smt M. Madhavi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,387 orders

Boora Sirisha

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

22 orders

Sri Shaik Babajan

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,433 orders

Smt V Silpa

SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT

467 orders

P. Vennela

JFCM, SPL. MOBILE COURT

552 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Courts, Chittoor