Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gorrela Veerraju vs Velugubantla Chandrakantham on 4 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996AP34, 1995(3)ALT161, AIR 1996 ANDHRA PRADESH 34, (1995) 3 CURCC 586 (1995) 2 APLJ 479, (1995) 2 APLJ 479
ORDER
1. This is an application seeking transfer of I.A. No. 1443/92 in O.S. SR No. 50/91 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada to the file of any other Sub Judge's Court at Kakinada or to the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.
2. It is stated that on earlier occasion, in other proceedings filed by the respondent in O.S. No. 332/88, the respondent herein seems to have filed I.A. No. 3628/91 in the said suit for impleading her as legal representative of deceased Kesavamurthy on the ground that she is the widow and also his legatee under a Will alleged to have been executed by her husband in respect of the properties in question. Though the said I.A. was contested by the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner seems to have been rejected by the Principal Subordinate Judge and allowed the said I.A.
3. It is stated that an unregistered O.S. SR. No. 50/91 has been filed by the deceased Kesavamurthy against the petitioner for alleged arrears of rent for subsequent years. The respondent seems to have filed I.A. No. 1443/92 bringing herself on record as legal representative of her deceased husband relying on the earlier order dated 27-9-1993 in I.A. No. 3628/91. Since the matter is coming up for orders before the same Judge, the petitioner seems to have filed O.P, No. 159/ 94 before Ihe III Additional District Judge, Kakinada seeking to transfer the said I.A. No. 1443/92 pending on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Kakinada to any other Sub-Judge's Court. However, the said O.P. was dismissed.
4. The present Tr. C.M.P. is filed with the same relief seeking to transfer I.A. No. I443/ 92 in O.S. SR. No. 50/91 from the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Kakinada to any other Sub-Judge's Court at Kakinada.
5. During the course of arguments, Sri Subrahrnanyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that on earlier occasion, the same Presiding Officer had allowed the application filed by the respondent herein and therefore, in this background, the present application in I.A. No. 1443/92 filed by the respondent would also be allowed and if it is allowed, the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury. It is also alleged that, during the course of hearing, the Presiding Officer seems to have made certain observations and as such, the petitioner is under the impression that the Presiding Officer may pass an adverse order and has therefore, sought transfer of I.A. No. 1443/92 pending on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Kakinada to any other Sub Court in Kakinada.
6. It is not disputed that earlier I.A. No. 3628/91 in O.S. No. 332/88 filed by the respondent was allowed by the Presiding Officer by an order dated 27-9-1993 which has not been challenged in the higher Courts, Therefore, that order has become final. In the present suit in O.S. SR. No. 50/91, the respondent seems to have filed the said I.A No. 1443/92 seeking to implead herself basing on the order, which is in her favour in I.A. 3628/91. As the respondent succeeded in obtaining an order which has become final, she is entitled to seek similar relief in the present suit also. Whether the Court allows or disallows the same is a different aspect.
7. It is but natural that the Presiding Officer do make certain observations during the course of hearing. The Presiding Officers cannot be mere spectators. They are to actively participate in the proceedings as they are the persons who have to finally pass appropriate orders. In order to find out the genesis of controversy, the Presiding Officers would probably seek certain clarifications from the counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and also make certain observations. However, this alone cannot be a ground to seek transfer of a case from one Court to other. If this trend is to be allowed, I am of the view, the parties will try to manoeuvre on this aspect and drag on the litigation for an indefinite period even though they have no case. When the Court passes an order on merits, such an order is always subject matter of challenge.
8. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Presiding Officer has shown special interest in the case nor the parties are related to the Presiding Officer. The petitioner, having allowed the first order passed in LA. No. 3628/91 to become final, cannot now take shelter under that order for seeking transfer of I.A. No. 1443/92 pending before the same Presiding Officer on ill-founded apprehension.
9. The general principle underlining Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, governing the transfer of cases from one Court to another is that the adjudication of a dispute if allowed to be completed in the same court, the parties would suffer huge expenses and face difficulties which invariably would lead to injustice if the suit has been filed in a particular Court for the purpose of working injustice to opposite party. The party seeking transfer has reasonable apprehension that he will not get a fair trial or the transfer is designed for the convenience of the parties or transfer is needed to avoid conflicting decisions.
10. In this case, the petitioner seeks transfer of said LA. No. 1443/92 only on the ground that the Presiding Officer has passed an order in favour of the respondent in earlier proceedings besides making certain observations during the course of hearing in the interlocutory application now pending for consideration before the same Presiding Officer.
11. As observed by me, the transfer provisions are such that they are intended to facilitate a party seeking transfer only when it satisfies the Courts that if the case is allowed to be adjudicated in the same Court, the party would invariably suffer irreparable injury.
12. In the case on hand, I am of the view, the petitioner has failed to disclose sufficient reasons seeking transfer of the I.A. No. 1443/ 92 from the file of Subordinate Judge, Kakinada to any other Sub-Judge's Court at Kakinada.
13. In this view of the matter, the Tr. C.M.P. deserves no consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.
14. Petition dismissed.