L. J. VEERA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) LEARNED Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Ganshyamdas Mandani, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent.

( 2 ) THE Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 24 of the code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "code" in short, praying for transfer of o. S. No. 58/99 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Proddatur, Cuddapah District to any other Court having jurisdiction in cuddapah District and pass such other suitable orders.

( 3 ) IT is stated that one Sri Rama Oil mills of Proddatur had filed a suit O. S. No. 29/97 against the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent for recovery of amount on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. It is further averred that the said Sri Rama oil Mills and the 2nd respondent in the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition have jointly engaged the petitioner to buy imported palmolein oil from the 2nd respondent to avoid multiplicity of taxation and the petitioner firm was paid its brokerage for the services rendered. As such the defence in the case was negatived though there is ample evidence to substantiate the same and the learned Senior Civil Judge, proddatur, negativing the defence had ultimately decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same A. S. No. 58/2000 was preferred before the I Additional District Judge, cuddapah and the same is pending disposal. It is further stated that the 1st respondent had filed a suit against him for recovery of amount in O. S. No. 58/99 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur and the defence in the present suit also is the same as was taken in O. S. No. 29/97 and in the light of the view taken by the learned senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, the petitioner expressed an apprehension that his defence may be negatived in the present suit also. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed t. O. P. No. 564/2001 before the District Court, cuddapah and the said O. P. was dismissed on 26-12-2002 on the ground that such apprehension appears to be baseless. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is left with no other option except to move the present transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under section 24 of the Code.

( 4 ) SRI L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had submitted that in the light of the language employed in Section 24 of the Code, the powers of this Court to order transfer are very wide and inasmuch as an apprehension of bias in the light of the view already expressed by the learned Judge is taken as a ground, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition may be ordered as prayed for transferring O. S. No. 58/99 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Proddatur to any other court of competent jurisdiction within cuddapah District.

( 5 ) PER contra Sri Ganshyamdas mandani, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent had made the following submissions. The learned Counsel contended that in view of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Cuddapah in T. O. P. No. 564/2001, the Transfer Civil miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code cannot be maintained. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to section 141 of the Code and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code and had maintained that Order 2 rule 2 of the Code operates as a bar for the maintainability of the present Transfer Civil miscellaneous Petition. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Sections 22 and 23 of the Code apart from the language of Section 24 of the Code. The learned counsel also had contended that it is only an apprehension expressed by the petitioner and on such a ground transfer cannot be ordered.

( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 7 ) THE main ground averred by the petitioner is that the defence in O. S. No. 29/ 97 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur and also in O. S. No. 58/99 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Proddatur virtually is one and the same and the learned Senior civil Judge, Proddatur already had arrived at a conclusion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document