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 of 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 practising 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 embarrassment 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 ATC. 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 Bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document