The High Court · 2025

1. Sri P. Satish , S/o. P. Gangireddi, Aged about 48 year, )cc Business R/o H.No. Villa No.23, Aparna Orchids, Hitex Road, lzzatl'a1ar, Kondapur. Hyderabad - 84

2. Sri P. Saraswatlri,, Wo. P. Gangireddi, Aged about 7! vr:ars, Occ. House wife Rio H.No. Vi la No.23, Aparna Orchids, Hitex Road, lz, a Nagar, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 84 .,.RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petitron under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in thr in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ct vacate the interim order dated 18/03/2025 passed in lA N No 'l 15 of 2025 in:he interest of justice and pass. ( ircumstances stated .r t may be pleased to t I of 2025 in TRCMP lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr r ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hrgh Cr .rrt may be pleased to stay all further pr,:ceedings in OS No.560 of 2019 perr :irg on the file of Xl Additronal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy l)r;trict at L.B. Nagar, pending disposal of main transfer petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. CH RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D.SIVA SAKAR ACHp RAYA The Court made the following: ORDER $l --7ffir 'rllryi!#. 'y "tltirr. ' ," HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.l 15 of 2025 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 Courl of the Additionat District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The brief lacts of the case as narrated in the affidavit, shom-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. I 46 of 2020 before the same Court for declaration of title and recovery of possession and fuilher, 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.54I 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 ( t ! ,l 11 2 LNA, J 7iC!"ll.No I I5 of2025 \:..-:: Court disposed of the said Revision, r,ide order cated 14.10.2022. directing the XI Additional District Judge, Rangr '{eddy District at L.B.Nagar, to disposc of thc said IA within a per, ,r.1 of four rnonths and pursuant thereto, the trial Court has adjudicate,l rurd passed orders dismissing the said IA, vide orders dated 06.02.20:,.:.

2.1 . The petitioners avered that since their fl,,v of title and the survey nurrber of schedule property in OS.No.5r' 0 of 2019 are one ar-rd the same as that of OS.No.146 of 2020 and lL rther. in vierv of history of O,S.No.146 of 2020, they apprehend ,hrrt advcrse orders rnay be passed against them and they may not g(: .ustlce beforc the same Cou( and as such, they were constrained tc fi1e the present TTCMP.

3. On 23.O4.2025, when the matter was tak, ,r up for hcaling, leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that h.: plesent TrCMP is filed seeking transler of OS.No.560 of 2019 o r the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy Distric t I any other Courl at Ranga Reddy District, on the ground of bias sho,,r, by the Presiding Officer, nevertheless, since the said Presiding Ol icer is transfened, nothing survives for adjudication in the present I-'CMP. However, leamed counsel for respondents vehemently conterl( ed that since the I t I ?ci::ErA:itg ,*3 .T,, ,f J LNA- J kt:MP.Na I l5 of 2025 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, leamed counsel for respondent No.l, 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 Ofhcer 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 subrnission, leamed counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Ganesh Prasad v. M.L. Vasudevamurthy I.

5. There is no quarrel with regard to the observations rnade by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and this Court is in complete agreement with the same. 12002 SCC ont,ineKar 265 \ \ 4 LNA, J h.CltlP No I l5 oI20)5

6. Leanred counsel for respondents submitted th rt petitior-rer Nos 2 ancl 3 havc a history of misleading the Cottrt and to rt ow the same, he produced a copy of order dated 29.04-2020, passt I by this Courl in WP.No.22499 of 2019 hlcd by the petitioners,' hDrein this Court having found that the petitioners have suppressed tl e r-r-raterial facts, which is nothing but abuse of process of Court, li ;rnissed the said Writ Petition i,r,ith exemplary costs of Rs.1,0C Jt t0/- payable by petitioners. Thus, by drawing the attention of thi, ( lourl to the said order, learned couttscl contended that the petit :rrlers are chronic litigants, atternpt to mislead the Court convenietr i1 by resorting to frivolous litigation tike the present one, which c 'nnot be permitted and therefore, prayed this Coutt to take stringent tction against the petitioners lor making allegations against the Pres d ng Officer of the triat Court rvithout there being any substantial proo ' in that regard' 7 . Though initialty, the trCMP is fited by tlr . petitioners on an apprehension that they would not getjustice befor" llre same Presiding Officer who earlier dealt with OS.No.146 of 20'.'.0. subsequently, in view of chanqe of circumstances i.e., transfer of tl' , Presiding Officer, leamed counsel for petitioners submitted that I t{' cause does not survive in TrCMP and sought to withdraw the cat;:. Hence, this Court I l- t i ;, To, W TPKIPSI, 5 LNA, J TrCMP.No.t ts of202s deems that it is not appropdate to delve into the allegations made by the petitioners against the Presiding Officer to decide as to whether the same are bona fide or the apprehension of the petitioners about miscaffiage of justice is reasonable or it is just a mere apprehension, vis-d-vis the conduct of the petitioners. Therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents as regards the conduct of the petitioners in a distinct proceeding i.e., WP.No.22499 of 20 t9 is not looked into in the present case.

8. Accordingly, this TrCMP is dismissed. No costs

9. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER l The Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 2 The Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar 3. One CC to SRl. CH RAVINDER Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. D.SIVA SAKAR ACHARAYA Advocate IOPUCI

5. Two CD Copies d HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 ORDER TRCMP.No.115 ot 2025 10 iiI ilIfi :,': ,:" / ,-' ., ,i, .,, TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS FETITION IS DISMISSED 1 q L0 a I Etj 1