THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15638 of 2009 DATE: 10.08.2009 Between: T.K. Kodandaram … Petitioner And The Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15638 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash all the proceedings in O.S.No.62 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court – cum – Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad - 5th respondent herein, and to declare transfer of the said suit from the court of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad – 3rd respondent herein to the 5th respondent court by the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad - 4th respondent herein, as illegal and unlawful. Heard Sri T.K. Kodandaram, party in person, and Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and at their request, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioner herein is 1st defendant in O.S.No.62 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad – 5th respondent. The main objection taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is that at the stage of framing of issues, the suit was transferred from 3rd respondent court (1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad) to 5th respondent court (The Family Court Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad) without notice to the parties. The 5th respondent court is having no jurisdiction to try any suits other than the cases fall under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. That apart, the 4th respondent court (the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad) also is not having administrative power over the 5th respondent court (the Family Court Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad) in terms of the Rule 42 of the High Court of A.P. Family Courts (court) Rules. 6th respondent herein filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction simplicitor, but not otherwise. Therefore, the present suit is rightly filed before the 3rd respondent court (The 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad) and it is within the well defined principles of law. It is now well settled that every one has ample opportunity to raise any plea with regard to the jurisdiction and get the same decided. Therefore, having regard to such alternative remedy available, the petitioner has to move an appropriate application before proper forum, which shall decide the application on its own merits. In view of the same, this Court would restrain from exercising any jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to file an appropriate application before the proper forum as observed above. After filing such an application, the forum shall dispose of the same on its own merits, within a period of one month, after giving notice to both parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 10th August, 2009. cbs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15638 of 2009 (Dismissed) 10th August, 2009 CBS