The court emphasized the need for substantiated claims before transferring a case based on allegations against a presiding officer.

ORDER:

The present Tr.C.M.P. is filed seeking transfer of G.W.O.P.No.15 of 2024 from the Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to any other Court which has equivalent jurisdiction.

2. Heard Sri Amancharla V.Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Y.Maheswar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 represented by his guardian i.e., his mother filed G.W.O.P.No.15 of 2024 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 8 (2) of the Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Sections 29 and 31 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to accord permission to sell 50 % of minor’s share in the subject property which was acquired by him by way of succession from his father. The petitioner herein is claimed to be executor of the will dated 31.07.2023 executed by the father of respondent No.1 and filed I.A.No.1655 of 2024 to implead him as party to the suit and the said application was allowed and the petitioner was impleaded as respondent No.4 to G.W.O.P. The present Tr.C.M.P. is filed by the petitioner contending that the trial Court has not permitted the petitioner to file additional counter and without framing issues accepted chief affidavit in lieu of the evidence of the PW1 with additional documents, and hurriedly appointed Advocate Commissioner to record evidence, on or before 07.03.2025 stating that the guardian of respondent No.1 herein has to leave to USA. It is further averred that the trial Court has not provided sufficient time to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and also cross-examine the witnesses.

4. It is further contended that the subject property is being sold at a lesser price and the petitioner being the executor of the will has a duty to safeguard the interests of the children of the deceased. Unless the Court gives adequate opportunity to participate and cross-examine witnesses, the interest of children of the deceased will be defeated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the will dated 31.07.2023 executed by the father of respondent No.1, the petitioner endorsed as executor of the will and further submitted that the relationship between the deceased and his wife was not in good terms and therefore, they got divorced on 13.08.2023 and the deceased has transferred his entire property to his children. It is further contended that if the guardian of respondent No.1 is allowed to alienate the properties at much lesser price than the market value, the purpose of executing the will and appointing the petitioner as the executor of will would be defeated. It is further contended that though, there is no urgency in the matter, the Trial Court has appointed Advocate Commissioner and insisted for day to day proceedings and that the trial Court is proceeding with the matter without giving sufficient time to the petitioner to substantiate his claim.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that adequate time has been given to the petitioner, however, the petitioner was trying to protract the matter. When the matter was posted for cross examination of PW1, the petitioner herein has failed to complete the cross examination and sought time on the ground that he has to visit Maha Kumbamela and on 20.02.2025, when the matter was listed at his request, the petitioner once again failed to cross examine the witness and at his request, the matter was adjourned to 17.03.2025 for cross examination. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and was directed to complete the cross examination of PW1 on