HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer O.S.No.560 of 2019 pending on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar to Court of the Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the affidavit, shorn-off unnecessary details, are that the respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.560 of 2019 seeking declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property; that while the said suit is pending, petitioner No.2 herein, represented by his GPA holders-petitioner Nos.7 and 8 herein, filed a suit in O.S.No.146 of 2020 before the same Court for declaration of title and recovery of possession and further, to declare the sale deeds as null and void in respect of the land covered by the same survey number as mentioned in OS.No.560 of 2019. Along with the said suit, IA.No.541 of 2020 was also filed seeking ad-interim injunction not to change the nature of land and that aggrieved by inaction of the trial Court in disposing of the said I.A., CRP.No.1673 of 2022 was filed and this Court disposed of the said Revision, vide order dated 14.10.2022, directing the XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to dispose of the said IA within a period of four months and pursuant thereto, the trial Court has adjudicated and passed orders dismissing the said IA, vide orders dated 06.02.2025.

2.1. The petitioners averred that since their flow of title and the survey number of schedule property in OS.No.560 of 2019 are one and the same as that of OS.No.146 of 2020 and further, in view of history of O.S.No.146 of 2020, they apprehend that adverse orders may be passed against them and they may not get justice before the same Court and as such, they were constrained to file the present TrCMP.

3. On 23.04.2025, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present TrCMP is filed seeking transfer of OS.No.560 of 2019 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District to any other Court at Ranga Reddy District, on the ground of bias shown by the Presiding Officer, nevertheless, since the said Presiding Officer is transferred, nothing survives for adjudication in the present TrCMP. However, learned counsel for respondents vehemently contended that since the petitioners have made allegations against the Presiding Officer, the matter requires adjudication as to the veracity of the allegations made by them. This Court, in view of the said submissions, adjourned the case. Later, Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D.Siva Acharya, learned counsel for respondent No.1, have advanced their arguments at length.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that Section 24 CPC allows transfer of cases only if there is a reasonable and bona fide apprehension of bias by the Presiding Officer and the litigant must prove such bias through facts and circumstances that the apprehension is genuine and not a delaying tactic exercise. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Ganesh Prasad v. M.L.

Vasudevamurthy ¹

5. There is no quarrel with regard to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and this Court is in complete agreement with the same.

2002 SCC OnLineKar 265

6. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have a history of misleading the Court and to show the same, he produced a copy of order dated 29.04.2020, passed by this Court in WP.No.22499 of 2019 filed by the petitioners, wherein this Court having found that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts, which is nothing but abuse of process of Court, dismissed the said Writ Petition with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by petitioners. Thus, by d