Litigant Seeking Case Transfer Under Section 24 CPC Must Approach Court With Clean Hands: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Petitioner suppressed the real facts and approached this Court with unclean hands for seeking transfer of a case from one Court to another and that he is not at all entitled to the relief in the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant order dated April 29, 2026, dismissed a transfer petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that a litigant who suppresses material facts is not entitled to discretionary relief.

A single-judge bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao observed that the petitioner had approached the court with "unclean hands" by failing to disclose the outcome of previous litigation involving the same parties and property.

The petitioner sought to transfer a suit for delivery of possession (O.S. No. 91/2014) pending before the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, to the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The petitioner argued that this suit should be tried alongside a newer suit (O.S. No. 26/2023) filed by him for a permanent injunction, claiming both cases involved the same subject property and common parties.

The primary question before the Court was whether the petitioner had made out a sufficient case for the transfer of a long-pending suit under Section 24 of the CPC. The Court also considered whether the petitioner's conduct, specifically the alleged suppression of a 2012 suit and its subsequent decree, disqualified him from seeking the court's discretionary intervention.

Court Highlights Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Earlier Litigation

The Court noted that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the history of a previous litigation, O.S. No. 549 of 2012, which he had initially filed for a permanent injunction. The bench found that the VI Additional District Judge had already passed a decree in that matter, granting an injunction in favor of the petitioner, but specifically made it "subject to the result of comprehensive suit in O.S.No.91 of 2014."

By seeking to move O.S. No. 91 of 2014 to a different court after twelve years, the petitioner was attempting to circumvent the very court that had issued the conditional decree. The bench observed that the petitioner failed to mention the filing of a memo in the earlier suit or the specific findings of the VI Additional District Judge when approaching the High Court for transfer.

"The petitioner suppressed the fact of filing of earlier suit in O.S.No.549 of 2012 and also the filing of memo by the petitioner and also the finding given by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada."

New Suit Filed For Same Relief As Disposed Matter

The Court expressed concern over the petitioner’s conduct in filing O.S. No. 26 of 2023. Justice Rao observed that after the disposal of the 2012 suit, the petitioner filed this new suit before the III Additional District Judge seeking the "selfsame relief" of permanent injunction that was the subject of the earlier litigation.

This redundancy in litigation, combined with the attempt to transfer the comprehensive 2014 suit to the court where the new suit was pending, appeared to be a strategic move rather than a necessity for justice. The Court found no merit in clubbing a 2014 suit with a 2023 suit when the cause of action and the stage of proceedings were vastly different.

Difference In Parties And Cause Of Action In Suits Sought To Be Clubbed

Upon perusing the records, the Court found that the parties in both suits were not identical. Specifically, it was noted that the third plaintiff in the 2014 suit was not a party to the 2023 suit, and the first defendant in the 2023 suit was not a party to the 2014 suit. Furthermore, the Court held that the causes of action in O.S. No. 91 of 2014 and O.S. No. 26 of 2023 were distinct.

The bench emphasized that the 2014 suit was a comprehensive matter for recovery of possession and damages, whereas the 2023 suit was a simpler injunction plea. Given the twelve-year vintage of the original suit, the Court was not inclined to disrupt the proceedings based on a newer filing with different party compositions.

"The cause of action arose in both the suits viz., O.S.No.91 of 2014 and O.S.No.26 of 2023 are different... the petitioner herein filed another suit in O.S.No.26 of 2023... seeking relief of transfer of O.S.No.91 of 2014 after a lapse of twelve (12) years."

Unclean Hands Disentitle Petitioner To Discretionary Relief

In its concluding analysis, the High Court reiterated the foundational legal principle that those seeking equity must do equity. The Court held that the suppression of real facts regarding the 2012 decree and the conditional nature of the injunction granted therein was fatal to the petitioner's plea for transfer.

Justice Rao concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition due to his conduct. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and all pending interim applications were closed.

The High Court dismissed the transfer petition, affirming that the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, shall continue to hear O.S. No. 91 of 2014. The ruling serves as a stern reminder that litigants cannot use Section 24 CPC to indulge in forum shopping or to bypass specific judicial directions through the suppression of material case history.

Date of Decision: 29 April 2026