srinivasa Iyengar, J.

1. After taking time to consider my order, and giving the matter my very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this petition for transfer should be dismissed.

2. The transfer that has been applied for is of Original Petition No. 30 of 1922 on the file of the District Court of Anantapur to another District Court. That original petition was filed under the Guardians and Wards Act more than two years ago and has been pending all this time and is now part-heard. The most curious feature about the application for transfer is that the affidavit in support, thereof has been filed not by the petitioner, who is also the petitioner in the lower Court, or any agent or relation of hers, but by her vakil who has been appearing for her in that original petition. In the view that I have taken of this case it is unnecessary for me to deal in detail with the various allegations made and denied on one side or the other. It is sufficient to state that the application for transfer and the grounds alleged therefor, are due entirely to several regrettable passages and incidents in the course of the hearing of the petition between the learned vakil for the pet