Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Chinaswamy Naidu vs K. Padmanabhaiah on 15 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(6)ALD92, 2000(5)ALT443, 2001 A I H C 1036, (2000) 5 ANDH LT 443 (2000) 6 ANDHLD 92, (2000) 6 ANDHLD 92
ORDER
1. Heard Sri R.S. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Govinti Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the order under revision.
2. What weighed with the learned District Judge, Chittoor District, to order transfer OP No.410 of 1998 filed by the respondent herein is explicity stated by the learned District Judge himself in paragraph (6) of the order which reads as under:
"It is the undisputed fact that the decree holder is the father of Sri G. Gumswamy Naidu, a leading practitioner before the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Pakala. For disposal of any matter pending before any Court, the Presiding Officer, the Advocates of both sides as well as parties has to co-operate. When the son of the decree holder having considerable work in the Court, naturally the Presiding Officer may have an impression that if the matter goes against the decree holder, his son may not co-operate in the day today proceedings and it is but natural for the judgment debtor for having apprehension that the relationship of the decree holder with the leading Advocate in the Court, may have some influence in the mind of the Court. Under such circumstances it is desirable to transfer the E.P. with fixing specific time for disposal of the E.P."
3. In my considered opinion, the reason given by the learned District Judge is totally perverse and not at all germane for the decision-making in the O.P. At the time of hearing, Mr. P. Govind Reddy, read out the grounds stated in the O.P. for seeking transfer of Execution Petition. The second ground stated in the Transfer O.P., it appears, appealed to the learned District Judge as reflected in his reasoning to order the Transfer O.P. It is highly de-meaning and denigrating to attribute a faculty to any Judge that the mere fact that in a litigation a party's son or any other relative is a practising Counsel in a Court would influence the mind of the Judge of that Court and judgment that may be delivered by him in such litigation would be biased and partisan. If any Judge has such weak mental faculty, in my considered opinion, such Judge would be totally unfit to occupy the post held by him.
4. The grounds stated by the respondent herein in his Transfer O.P., do not constitute sufficient cause to order the Transfer OP. In that view of Hie matter, CRP is allowed. The order under revision is set aside. Tr.OP No.410 of 1998 is dismissed. No costs.