THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVL REVISION PETITION No.5328 of 2010 Dated 29th January, 2011 Between: Vysyaraju Suryanarayana Raju …Petitioner And Karumuri Sambasiva Rao …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for respondent: Sri P.Durga Prasad The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 04.10.2010, in Tr.O.P.No.309 of 2010, on the file of the learned District Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.81 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner from evicting him from the suit schedule property. By the judgment and decree, dated 09.12.2005, the said suit was decreed. The respondent filed A.S.No.21 of 2006 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Srikakulam feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree. While the said appeal was pending, the respondent also filed R.C.C.No.2 of 2005 before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 seeking permission to deposit the rents. Both the appeal and the R.C.C., were referred to Lok Adalat, Srikakulam. A compromise award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 24.04.2007, wherein the respondent agreed to vacate the property belonging to the petitioner by the end of February, 2010. However, it is the case of the respondent that on 08.03.2010 a fresh oral lease was executed by the petitioner and that in pursuance of the said lease, he is entitled to continue as tenant. The petitioner has filed E.P.No.69 of 2010 in R.C.C.No.2 of 2005 for execution of the compromise award passed by the Lok Adalat. In the said EP, on 17.03.2010, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge issued warrant for execution of the award and to report to the Court by the bailiff. In view of subsequent purported oral lease, the respondent filed O.S.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, he filed Tr.O.P.No.309 of 2010 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Srikakulam for transfer of the E.P., pending before the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for being disposed of along with O.S.No.99 of 2010. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit resisting the said application. However, the learned District Judge under the impugned order disposed of the said application on finding that the respondent has over valued the suit and filed the same in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam instead of filing the same in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and accordingly, directed both the cases to be disposed of by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. A perusal of the order under revision shows that the learned District Judge has held that the respondent has increased the market value and filed the suit in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Significantly, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, has not raised any objection on the correct market value of the suit property. Therefore, it is not known how the learned District Judge has taken upon himself the issue of market value of the suit schedule property and could come to the conclusion that the suit schedule property was over valued by the respondent. The only issue before the learned District Judge was whether the application for transfer of the E.P., to the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for being disposed of along with O.S.No.99 of 2010 was tenable or not. While the respondent has sought for transfer of E.P., to the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, before whom, the suit is pending, the learned District Judge has transferred O.S.No.99 of 2010 from the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge to that of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge before whom the E.P., is pending of his own accord without there being any prayer sought by either of the parties. This, in my opinion, is a wholly incorrect approach on the part of the learned District Judge. Coming to the issue as to whether there are justifiable grounds for transfer of the pending E.P., to the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, before whom, O.S.No.99 of 2010 is pending, it is not in dispute that the E.P., and the suit are based on separate causes of action. The respondent is always entitled to seek interim protection till the disposal of the suit. Indeed, it has come out at the hearing that initially he was able to get an order of injunction, which was subsequently vacated and the CMA filed by the respondent against the order vacating the injunction is pending before the Family Court, Srikakulam. If at all, the respondent is entitled to pursue the said CMA. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable ground for transfer of the E.P., from the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam before whom the suit filed by the respondent is pending. For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and the order under revision is set aside. The parties are left free to pursue the pending proceedings before the respective Courts. As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, the interim order, dated 22.11.2010, granted by this Court, shall stand vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.7076 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th January, 2011 VGB