THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Tr.C.M.P.NO.273 of 2019 ORDER: Sri Ch.Madhava Raman, Advocate representing Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice to the respondent has been treated as effected since endorsement of the Postal Authorities on the envelope of this notice is that it was ‘unclaimed’ and hence, returned to the sender. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. O.S.No.579 of 2014 was filed by her against the respondent on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada. An ex parte decree was passed in the suit on 23.04.2015 and this decree was transferred to the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kakinada. Thereupon, the petitioner filed E.P.No.48 of 2017 in the above Court and sale of the property was also held in the E.P, wherein the property was purchased by one Sri Pothabathula Venkanna, S/o.Seethayya being the highest bidder. 3. At this stage, the respondent filed I.A.No.1366 of 2015 to set aside the ex parte decree along with I.A.No.1365 of 2015, requesting to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the above application in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada, where the decree was passed. Both these petitions were allowed with a direction that the respondent should deposit half of the decretal amount within one month from the date of order i.e. 24.07.2018. 4. The respondent carried the matter to this Court in C.R.P.No.4609 of 2019 where, the respondent was directed to 2 deposit 1/4th of the decretal amount within three weeks from the date of the order in the trial Court, reducing the amount to be deposited, as ordered by the Trial Court. 5. It is now the contention of the petitioner that in view of the above orders, the proceedings in E.P.No.48 of 2017 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada have been stalled and for better adjudication and as much as the respondent is also a resident of Kakinada, the suit be transferred to the above Court. 6. Thus, reason of convenience is set out by the petitioner to make the request for transfer of the suit. 7. The petitioner has chosen to file the suit at Gudivada in competent Court of jurisdiction against the respondent. Just because basing on the decree which has already been set aside, execution petition was laid in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, it cannot be a reason for the petitioner to make this request to transfer the suit. It amounts to ‘forum shopping’ to suit the convenience of the petitioner, which in all eventualities, shall not be encouraged. 8. In the result, the transfer petition is dismissed. No costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA Dated 02.01.2020 KA 3