THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Tr.C.M.P.No.145 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.29 of 2009 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioners, for recovery of Rs.24,66,666/-, with future interest. The petitioners seek transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction in the District of Ananthapur or Kurnool. The petitioners contend that initially a suit was filed in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa and when certain acts of interference and threatening by and on behalf of the respondent were brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer, he made over the matter to the Court of I Additional District Judge, and even there, the same situation continued. They further submit that, on account of the non-availability of the Presiding Officer of the I Additional District Judge, the matter was dealt with by the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Kadapa, and there also, the high handedness on the part of the respondent continued. It was pleaded that the respondent is harassing them by obtaining orders of attachment etc., vis-à-vis their properties. The application is opposed by the respondent. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of Tr.C.M.P., are denied. Heard Sri Md. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners is for recovery of money. An application for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C., was filed. On apprehension expressed by the petitioners, learned Principal District Judge made over the matter to the Court of I Additional District Judge. That Court passed an order of attachment before judgment. In a revision filed by the petitioners herein, the order of attachment was set aside. The petitioners have stated the alleged acts of interference and threatening by and on behalf of the respondent as well as the complaint said to have been made by them to the police. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, on the one hand, and the respondent, on the other hand, are permanent residents of Kadapa. They are acquainted with each other so closely that money transactions of very high magnitude have taken place. The mere fact that the disputes have arisen between them cannot be treated as a ground for transferring the suit. The apprehension, if any, expressed by the petitioners can certainly be brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer, whenever the matter is taken up. There is no reason to believe that necessary steps in this direction would not be taken. Hence, the Tr.C.M.P. is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to inform the trial Court, in case they find any obstruction in the course of defending themselves in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:30.06.2010 GJ