THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1396 and 1400 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both the C.R.Ps. are interconnected. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners filed O.S.No.43 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the respondents herein, for the relief of declaration of title, delivery of possession of the suit schedule property, and mandatory injunction for demolition of the structures made thereon. The trial of the suit commenced. Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. defendants 3 and 4 in the suit, filed Tr.O.P.No.430 of 2009 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa, under Section 24 of C.P.C., with a prayer to transfer the suit to another Court of same jurisdiction. According to them, learned Presiding Officer did not accede even to the reasonable request for adjournment, particularly in the context of evidence of the defendants. It was pleaded that the 1st defendant i.e. respondent No.3, has fallen ill and despite that fact, her evidence was closed and without giving opportunity to respondents 1 and 2, their evidence was also closed on the same day. The 3rd respondent has also filed independent application, being Tr.O.P.No.431 of 2009. The petitioners opposed the applications. Learned Principal District Judge allowed the applications, through separate but similar orders, dated 02.02.2010. Hence, these two revisions. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that even according to the learned District Judge, the allegations made by the respondents are baseless and frivolous and still the suit was transferred. He contends that the suit was identified for disposal and the 3rd respondent is creating one obstruction or the other in disposal thereof. He further contends that even while transferring the suit to the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, learned District Judge has permitted the respondents herein to file applications to recall PW.1 and to reopen the suit, though the applications filed for that very purpose were dismissed earlier. The respondents sought transfer of the suit by filing two separate applications. The principal ground urged by them is that the learned trial Judge did not accede even to the reasonable request. The controversy was mostly about the commencement of evidence on behalf of the respondents. The 1st defendant i.e. the 3rd respondent in C.R.P.No.1396 of 2010, was to depose as DW.1 on a specified date. It was reported on her behalf that she has fallen ill. The learned trial Judge was naturally not prepared to accede to the request for adjournment, on the ground that it is an identified suit, and explanation was required to be given at frequent intervals for non- disposal thereof. Even while rejecting the request made on behalf of the 1st defendant for adjournment, the learned trial Judge appears to have closed the evidence on behalf of defendants 3 and 4 also on the same day. It is true that the learned District Judge made an observation to the effect that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned trial Judge. This Court is also of similar opinion. However, what has prompted the District Judge to transfer the suit was that the slightest apprehension entertained by the respondents as to the nature of treatment being accorded to them, by the learned Presiding Officer cannot be ignored. It is not as if the parties are put to any difficulty. The reason being that the Court to which the suit is transferred is at the same place. One genuine grievance of the petitioners is that the learned District Judge permitted the respondents herein to make applications for recall of PW.1. The record discloses that for that very relief, the respondents filed I.A.Nos.469 and 470 of 2009 and they were dismissed by the trial Court on 02.05.2009. Unless the orders are set aside, by a Superior Court, or reviewed by the same Court, it becomes impermissible for the respondents to make applications for that very relief. This fact does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned District Judge, when he made that observation. Therefore, the C.R.Ps. are dismissed, upholding the orders passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa, directing transfer of O.S.No.43 of 2003 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, to the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. However, the observation permitting the respondents to make application for recall of PW.1 is modified to the effect that they shall pursue the remedies in that behalf in accordance with law. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.19.04.2010. GJ