Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K.V. Gangaram And Ors. vs K. Krishna Murthy on 21 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)ALD577A
ORDER Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.
1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 2nd September, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Transfer O.P.No.186 of 1998 on his file.
2. The revision petitioner filed a tenancy petition in ATC.No.4 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram. At the fag end of pendency of the said O.P., the respondent in that O.P., who is a practicing advocate at Vizianagaram, filed a petition under Section 24 C.P.C., in O.P.No.186 of 1998 on the file of the learned District Judge to transfer ATC.4 of 1992 from Vizianagaram to any other court in the District.
3. As per the averments in the Transfer O.P., the petitioner therein pleaded that tenancy petition was posted to 7.5.1997 to hear the arguments, the respondent therein was filing petition after petition and dragging his feet, the petitioner being an advocate feeling it highly inconvenient and delicate to appear before the court for every adjournment and press for disposal of the matter. He also further pleaded that the petitioner understands that the Presiding Officer of the court is also feeling embarrassing to conduct the matter further. The said ground urged for the transfer of the O.P., was opposed by the revision petitioner. The learned District Judge merely observed that after considering the ground urged by the petitioner, he is of the opinion and satisfied that the transfer of A.T.C., is warranted. He did not discuss the merits or demerits of the ground advanced by the petitioner therein. He did not call for any report from the Presiding Officer of the court concerned to know whether he is feeling any embarrassment to conduct further inquiry in the A.T.C. There is no material before the learned District Judge to show that the present revision petitioner was unnecessarily dragging on the matter in the trial court. Therefore, there is no basis for the learned District Judge to accept the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner before him and then transfer the O.P., to the file of some other court.
4. The learned District Judge by his impugned order withdrew the A.T.C.4 of 1992 from the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and transferred it to the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, for inquiry. Aggrieved by the order of the transfer, this revision petition is filed.
5. At the time of admitting the revision petition, in C.M.P.No.24165 of 1998 on 24.11.1998 this court granted interim stay for a period of six weeks. Subsequently, by order dated 11.2.1999, the interim order was extended by this court till further orders.When this revision petition came up for final hearing before my learned brother Mr. Justice S. Ananda Reddy, it came to his notice that during the pendency of the interim orders passed by this court, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, ignoring the interim orders of this court, passed final orders in the A.T.C. concerned and the said petition was dismissed.My learned brother called for a report from Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, to know the circumstances under which A.T.C., was disposed of by him. In Bobbili court the tenancy petition was numbered as A.T.C.2 of 1998. The learned District Munsif sent his report dated 21.11.2001. It is clear from his report itself that the interim order passed on 24.11.1998 and the order extending the interim order till further orders passed by this court subsequently were received by the court concerned at Bobbili. However, he says in his report that his predecessor-in-office asked the counsel for the revision petitioner about continuance of stay or not and no information was given and therefore his predecessor posted the matter to 8.6.2001. He also stated that the case is pending for arguments since 9.4.2001 and by 3.9.2001 also memo was not filed about continuance of stay order. The present Officer, namely, Sri K. Chidananda was transferred to Bobbili and he assumed charge in June, 2001. He passed final orders on 3.9.2001 dismissing the A.T.C., with costs. In this revision petition, I do not propose to consider whether the reasons mentioned by the Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, for disposal of A.T.C., by him during the pendency of interim stay orders of this court are reasonable or sufficient or not. I direct the Registry to mark copy of this order to the Registrar (Vigilance), who shall place the copy of this order and the letter dated 21.11.2001 received from Sri K. Chidananda, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for further orders and directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
6. I am now concerned with the order to be passed in this revision petition in view of the order of the learned District Judge being set aside and in view of the fact that the transferee court had already disposed of A.T.C.No.2 of 1998 on its file.
7. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this court in M. BURHANUDDIN Vs. SAVITRI BAI (1). That decision relates to execution proceedings. After having the knowledge of stay that had been passed by the appellate court, the executing court proceeded with the execution. This court held as follows:
" If the Executing Court proceeds with execution despite its clear knowledge of the order of stay passed by the appellate court, all the proceedings taken after the knowledge of the order would be a nullity. Once again I am supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in . This is what Wanchoo. J (as he then was) speaking for the Court observed at page 1389:--
" In the case of a stay order, as it is addressed to the Court and prohibits it from proceeding further, as soon as the court has knowledge of the order, it is bound to obey it and if it does not, it acts illegally, and all proceedings taken after the knowledge of the order would be a nullity".
8. No other contra decision is brought to my notice. From the letter of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, it is very clear that the said court has got knowledge of interim stay orders passed by this court.In fact the orders of interim stay and extension of stay granted by this court are readily available on the file of the trial court. Though the interim orders of this court are in force, the trial court passed final orders in ATC.No.2 of 1998. In view of the principle of law laid down in Burhanuddin's case (1 supra), I hold that the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, in ATC.No.2 of 1998 is a nullity.
9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed with costs. The order of the learned District Judge in Transfer O.P.No.186 of 1998 is set aside. The said petition is dismissed with costs.The order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, in ATC.No.2 of 1998 is treated as null and void and set aside. ATC.No.4 of 1992 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, now pending as ATC.2 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, is withdrawn to the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. It must be numbered and disposed of as ATC.No.4 of 1992 only on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The costs payable in this revision petition by the respondent is fixed at Rs.1000=00.