'1 . Nb. Bahbood Ali Khan (Died per Lrs 2 v. The High Court for the State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order directing the '1st Respondent to produce anc file the entire record pertaining to the Complaint dated. 1910212021 in the subject flrit petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI RAKESH SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : SRI MALUGARI SUDERSHAN (SC FOR rHC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSII{G RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petition No.8773 of 2O2L ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent No1., i.e., the High Court for the State of Telangana, and against respondent No.2-Judicial Officer (who during the relevant period had worked as XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' at Hyderabad), praying the Court for the following relief /s' viz'' to direct respondent No. 1 to produce and frle the entire " I. record pertaining to the complaint dated 79 'O2 '2021; to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or direction more 2. particularly in the nature of a Wit of Mandamus directing the High Court for the State of Telangana to consider complaint of cornrption dated 19 'O2 '202 I lodged by petitioner herein against respondent No'2 (Judicial Offrcer) a;rd to conduct an enquiry into the said complaint as per law; and consequently, to impose maximum punishment upon respondent No.2." In addition to the aforesaid substantive relief' the 2. petitioner had also prayed for that-Which is reflected in paragraph No.26 of the afhdavit, which the petitioner had 2 wp_8773_2O2L PSK,J & NNR,J subsequently also claimed by way of an I.A. which has not been numbered but was still at the S.R. stage. The reLief so sought is extracted hereunder, viz., "lf the Hon'ble Court is inclined to disag 'ee with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. K. Manjusree vs. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telaagana and the State of A..P., rep. by its Registrar (Vigilancef, Hyderabad and ano,therl, then in such an event, the instant case will have to be referred to a l,arger Bench as per the ratio of judgment reported in Jaisri Sahu vs. Rajdewan Dubeyz."

3. Heard Mr.Rakesh Sanghi, learned cot nsel for the petitioner; and Mr.M. Sudershan, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana, for resF,ondent No.1.

4. Pending writ petition, the sole petitior er had died. Subsequenfly, the legal heirs of the petitioner he,rein have filed I.A.No.1 of 2027 in Writ Petition No.8773 of 2O,.\.1 praying the Court to bring them on record as legal represe ntatives of the deceased petitioner herein. Vide Order dated l7.C 1.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2O2l in Writ Petition No.8773 of tO2t, the legal representatives of the petitioner were brought on rr:cord. 'zots 1r1 l.L.r. 496 (D.8.) ' a.t-n. 1962 s.c. 83 .xe 3 wp_a773_2021 PSK,J & IINR,J

5. The whole grievance of the petitioner seems to be that which is reflected in the alleged complaint dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-1). The alleged grievance seems to be flowing from the proceedings that have been drawn in 'a Civil Suit, viz., O.S.No.952 of 2Ol4 pending on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 ald Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Court, 1908 seeking for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs share in the suit schedule property along with co-sharers, i.e., defendant Nos. I to 7 therein. The petitioner in the instalt Writ Petition is defendant No.2 in the above suit who had expired. The petitioner herein is now being prosecuted by his legal heirs in the present Writ Petition and also in the above suit, who have been brought on record (referred above).

6. The respondent No.2 herein, i.e., the Judicial Officer, who was seized of the above suit, was posted as XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad during the period l4.ll.20l9 up till 3O.O4.2O22. Thereafter, she had been tralsferred to different stations. I 4 w9_8773_2O2L PSK,J & NNR,J

7. The suit, 'riz., O.S.No.952 of 2024, was in r;tituted at least five years before respondent No.2 was posted at Hyderabad as the XXV Additional Chief Judge. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had been subsequently transferred from tlrat post after a brief stay of just about 2 Y" years. Meanwhile, the above suit had not been substantially progressed except for decisions on a couple of I.A.s.

8. Mearrwhile, pending suit, the petitioner l-rerein has filed two I.A.s, viz., I.A.No.ll7 of 2O2l in O.S.No.9i2 of 2OI4 on O2.O2.2O21 and I.A.No.166 of 2O2l rn O.S.No.9i52 of 2Ol4 on

05.o2.2021.

9. I.A.No.117 of 2O2l was liled by the petitionr:r herein under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w Rule 60 & Section 151 of Civil procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court for issua:rce of witness summons to the District Registrar, Hyderabad fol producing the registers mentioned as under, viz., "1. The Original Register, i.e., Book No.1 on which the Sale Deed dated 10.07.1974 bearing Document No.24O9 of 1974 is handwritten;

2. The Original Thumb Impression Register pertaining to the SaIe Deed dated 10.07. 19/4 beaing Document No.2409 of 1974; ! _. 5 wP 8773_2021 PSK,J & NNR,J

3. The Original Register, i.e., Book No.l, Volume No.616, Page Nos.385 to 386 on which the document dated 02.O8.1978 (Document No.3057/1978) is handwritten; and

4. The Original Thumb Impression Register pertaining to the Sale Deed dated O2.Oa:lgZg bearing Document No.3O57l 197 8."

10. I.A.No. 166 of 2O2t in I.A.No.457 of 2O2O in O.S.No.952 of 2Ol4 was filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 1O_A r/w Rule 60 R/o. Section 151 of Civil procedure Code, 19Og praying the Trial Court to send the Original Sale Deed dated

02.08.7978 bearing Document No.3O57l 1978 to the High Securit5r Printing Press, Nasik for determining the date of issue of the Non-Judicial stamp paper on which the said document is engrossed.

11. It may not be lost sight of the fact that the suit is primarily a suit for partition seeking for separate possession of the petitioner's share in the suit schedule property, It. appears that in the midst of the aJoresaid two I.A.,s being pending, the presiding Judge proceeded to decide I.A.No.234 of 2O1g and I.A.No.475 of 2O18. It is these two LA.,s which stood decided vide order dated 03.03.2021 whicin is under challenge in the I 6 wp_8773:2O2L PSK,J & NilR,J aforesaid two appeals, viz., Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.542 and 543 of2022. L2. However, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 25.02.2021 which means that the yievance of the petitioner seems to have arisen from conc. ucting of the proceedings in O.S.No.952 of 2Ol4 in between L4.ll.2Ol9 to

26.O2.2O21, i.e., in just around 15 months which is a little over from the time the respondent No.2 assumed charge as the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyde,-abad. Another fact which needs to be rea-lized is that barely after four months from the time respondent No.2 had assumed charge as the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyrlerabad due to COVID-l9 Pandemic, the country went into l rckdown for a considerable period of time and the Courts v.'ere closed for initially some time and thereafter the pro:eedings were conducted virtually again for a very long time.

13. So far as the grievance of the petitioner against respondent No.2 is concerned, the said grievance seems to lre primarily an allegation as to the officer being suspected of being corrupted and thus, the proceedings drawn is an outcomr of the biased mind that the petitionel fi2s egainst responoent No.2 and \ .,1, I / 7 wo 8773 2o2L PSK,J & NNR,J others. There does not seem to be any complaint or grievance so far as the other defendants in the suit are concerned' Also, there does not seem to be any complaint against aly of the judicial officers who had earlier presided over the Bench hearing the said suit, or against any of the subsequent judicial officers who were seized of the matter. In between, there seems to be injunction applications frled by the petitioner (defendant No'2 in the suit) before the Trial Court which stood rejected vide order dated 03.03.2021, and against which there a-re two appeals liled by the petitioner herein challenging the said order, i.e., Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.542 of 2022 and 543 of 2022, both of which are still pending considering before this Court. The sole grievance of the petitioner seems to be non-deciding of the above two I.A.'s, viz., I.A.No.117 of 2O2l in O.S.No.952 of 2Ol4 and I.A.No.166 of 2O2l in O.S.No.952 of 2014 by the Trial Court'

14. In the pleadings of the instant Writ Petition, there is no direct averment of any allegation of corruption leveled against the respondent No.2, except for mentioning that the petitioner suspecting bona-hdes of the Presiding Officer, i'e', the s, as would be respondent No.2 in conducting of the proceeding evident from the contents of paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the Writ Petition. The further grievance of the petitio ner also seems i l , 1 i I I i , + 8 wP_4773_2O2L PSK,J & N R,J to be the alleged non-adherence to the principl,:s laid down by the High Court and also the Hon,ble Suprem,: Court on the applications which the petitioner had liled (referr rd supra). Both these grounds do not give rise to a prima .facie strong case to convince this Bench to even apprehend that the respondent No.2 in the course of deciding the injunction petitior , to have been influenced by *y of the parties. The reason to rr.ach to the said conclusion is for the primary reason that :t was COVID lockdown period for the majority of the period during which the said O.S.No.952 of 2014 was taken up for hearing by the !,a respondent. The second reason for reaching tc the aforesaid conclusion is that, except for a decision in one or rwo LA.s, there does not seem to be any substantial progress trrat took place during the tenure of the respondent No.2 (Judicia Off,rcer) when she was seized of the above referred suit. Moreover, no substantial relief has also been granted in favour of any of the parties in any of the orders passed by the respond:nt No.2. The third reason is that the order dated 03.03.2021 t\at which has been passed by the respondent No.2 has already b.een subjected to challenge in Civil Miscellareous Appeal Nos.541i of 2022 and 543 of 2022. 9 wp_a773_2O2L PSK,J & NNR,J

15. As regards the other prayer that the petitioner has made, i.e., to refer the matter to the Larger Bench in the event if this Court is not agreeing for the said relief sought for in the writ petition by relying upon a decision of this High Court in Smt. K. Manjusree (supral. It is the view of this Bench that issue which the petitioner had tried to raise in the instant writ petition is neither identical nor similar to the facts in the impugned order which is decided by relying on the decision of this High Court in Smt. K. Manjusree (supral. Moreover, the issue decided in Smt. K. Manjusree (supral is in no manner relevant to the facts of the present case so also even to apply the analory laid down in the said decision, i.e., Smt. K. Manjusree (supraf. Therefore, the said prayer of the petitioner is unsustainable and thus cannot be acceded to.

16. So far as the other decisions which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are a-lso quite distinguishable on its facts itself, as those have all been decided in an entirely different contextual background than the contextual background of the instant case. L7. As regards the complaint dated 19.O2.2O2I (Annexure P-1) which the petitioner has sent to the Registrar (Vigilance), High ::10:: w9_8773 2O2l PSK,J & NNR,J Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad making certain allegations against the respondent No.2 (Judr cial Officer) is concerned, the said complaint, if it is still pen Iing, the same shall be taken into consideration on the 'adm inistrative side whereby the Registrar (Vigilance) shall ensure that the said complaint is scrutinized on its merits and , rn appropriate decision be taken thereon in accordance with tlLe practice and procedure laid down by the High Court on comlrlaints received against Judicial Officers by the Registrar (Vigilarrce). The said direction is on15, in the event if the complaint da-ed 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) is still pending. However, if the ccmplaint dated l9.O2.2O21 (Annexure P 1) has already been scrutinized and decided nothing further remains to be done on tht same.

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Ber Lch is of the considered opinion that no strong case has beerr made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of relief/ s as sought for by the petitioner in the instant writ petition in the given factual backdrop of the case for r xercising the extraordina5r Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition being devoid of any merit fails, ald the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. r'1 I ::11:: wp a7'73_2O2L PSKrr, 6E NNRrJ being devoid of any merit fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// - SD/. L ASSIST LAKSHMI BABU NT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To . One CC to SRI RAKESH SANGHI' Advocate !ol!^Cl I . one cc to SRI MALUGdG6;'Fii;AN-i'c FoR rHC)Advocate [oPUC] 2 .7 Two CD CoPies SAo'" (F / ., HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 ORDER WP.No.8773 of 2021 IHE s 14 7$ 1E JUlr 2$6 i'.tl (,,! -,' ,/ k ) ? i) ',,r- R- DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. fn- 20 ( ,) I