IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 11sq OF ?n9n Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of the proceedings (Order) dt.07-08-2019 India, aggrieved by on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa transferring the suit in OS.No.2/2013 from the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoti and transfer to the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Between: Shaik Ahmmad Hussain, S/o.Shaik Thotti Yakub Sab, Aged about 60 years, R/at. Devapatia PHC, Sambepalle, Rayachoti Mandal Kadapa District. , YSR ...Petitioner/Defendant AND 1. Shaik Khajapeer (died). 2. Smt. Shaik Dilshad Begum, W/o. late Shaik Khajapeer, Aged about 50 years, Indian Muslim, R/at D.No.42/9, Situate at Ward No.42, Sanjeevanagar Colony, Rayachoti Town, YSR Kadapa District. 3. Shaik Mansooralli, S/o. late Shaik Khajapeer, Aged about 26 years, Indian Muslim, R/at D.No.42/9, Situate at Ward No.42, Sanjeevanagar Colony, Rayachoti Town, YSR Kadapa District. 4. Shaik Mastan Valli, S/o. late Shaik Khajapeer Indian Muslim, R/at D,No.42/9, Situate Colony, Rayachoti Town, YSR Kadapa District. 5. Shaik Reshmma, S/o. Shaik Nowshad Muslim, R/at Guljaripet Maszid street, Aadimurthy Nagar Anantapuram District. 6. Shaik Karishma, D/o. late Shaik Indian Muslim, R/at D.No.42/9, Situate Colony, Rayachoti Town, YSR Kadapa District. Aged about 34 years at Ward No.42, Sanjeevanag ar Aged about 28 years, Indian Anantapuram, Khajapeer, Aged about 22 years. at Ward No.42, Sanjeevanagar ...Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2090 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS.No.31/2019 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, pending disposal of the above Revision. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L J Veera Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,5 & 6: Counsel for other Respondent Nos.3 & 4: The Court made the following: Reddy Sri C Prakash Reddy None Appeared *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY + C.R.P. No.1189 of 2020 % 03.02.2025 Between: Shaik Ahmmacl Hussain, ...Petitioner And Shaik Khajapeer Died and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant; Sri L.J.Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): Sri C.Prakash Reddy < Gist ; > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: 1 1994 see (Crl)712 (2016) 3 sec 370 1 APHC010320762020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1189/2020 Between: Shaik Ahmmad Hussain, ...PETITIONER AND Shaik Khajapeer Died and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LJVEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. C PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1189 of 2020 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against the order dated 07.08.2019 transferring O.S.Np.2 of 2013 from V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty to IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Petitioner is the defendant. Suit O.S.No.2 of 2013 was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.04.2010. As per the plaint, the plaintiff was the absolute owner of registered sale deed bearing document No.3352/2010 pertaining to the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the said property was conveyed in favour of the defendant under registered Sale deed dated 19.04.2010 vide document No.3353/2010 security for the amount lent by the defendant. The defendant, in turn, had executed an agreement of sale on 20.04.2010 agreeing reconveying the t property for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. A written statement was filed disputing the claim. 2. as In the suit, the issues were framed and trial was completed and the suit was coming up for arguments. At that stage, the impugned order was passed by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa transferring the suit from the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty to Principal District Judge, Kadapa and was made over to IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa for disposal. 3. Hence the present revision petition questioning the same, on the ground that there was no notice issued to the Petitioner before impugned order. passing the 4. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. 5. This Court on 20.01.2025 called for a report frpm the District Judge, Kadapa as to the reason for passing the impugned order of transfer and a copy of the requisition of Plaintiff No. 2 i.e. Shaik Dilshan Begum vide Reference No.4695 dated 07.08.2019 which was referred to in the impugned order. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa on 24.01.2025, whereunder it was mentioned that as the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty was transferred, the III Additional District Judge, Rajampet was placed incharge of the said Court. It was mentioned in the letter that the then III Additional District Judge, Rajampet forced the counsel for the plaintiff to adduce arguments on their behalf and had raised questions with regard to their limitation and the was adjourned to 25.07.2019 for arguments as a last chance. It was in that context, a request was made by plaintiff No.2 to the Principal District Judge, Kadapa to transfer the suit to any other Court in Kadapa District. case 6. In view of the requisition, the Principal District Kadapa, suo motu, passed the impugned proceedings. It was also mentioned in the letter that after the suit was transferred to IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa the 3 suit was renumbered as O.S No.31 of 2019 and was further transferred to VII Additional District Judge, Kadapa in order to maintain equilibrium of cases vide proceedings in Dis.No.6918 dated 05.11.2024. The copy of the requisition dated 07.08.2019 was also enclosed in the report of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 7. A reading of the letter of Smt. Shaik Dilshan Begum i.e. Responded No.2 herein, which is in Telugu, shows that transfer was only on the ground that III Additional District Judge, Rajampet has raised a query with regard to the limitation for filing the suit and was insisting the plaintiffs to proceed with the arguments. The letter does not mention any other reason. In the opinion of this Court, merely because the Court had posed uncomfortable questions to the counsel for the plaintiff and was insisting to proceed with the arguments, perse cannot be a ground to transfer the suit. The letter appears to be wholly misconceived and ill-advised. The transfer of cases from one Court to another reflects badly on the Judge and affects his morale in discharging his duties. An order of transfer should not be routinely passed just because an interested party had expressed apprehension about the manner of hearing. Only in exceptional circumstances and only to provide credibility to the judgement the power of transfer can be exercised. In the present case, the apprehension is manifested and cannot remotely be stated to be reasonable. Once trust issues are raised against an Officer and if the institution does not stand by 8. its Officer, his enthusiasm will take a beating and embolden the unscrupulous rogue elements. 9. In a case where disparaging remarks were made against a Judge of the District Court regarding a bail order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Tiwari V. State of M.P. ^ observed at paragraph 4 the impact of such remarks and the charged atmosphere in the District Courts as under' •4. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and hence provides for appeals and revisions. A judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity. While doing sometimes, he is likely to err. It is well said that a judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born. And that applies to judges at all levels from the lowest to the highest. Sometimes, the difference in views of the higher and the lower courts is purely a result of a difference in approach and perception. On such so. occasions, the lower courts are not necessarily wrong and the higher courts always right. It has also to be remembered that the lower Judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks — more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should therefore, be attributed to improper motive. It is possible that a particular Judicial officer may be consistently passing orders creating a suspicion ofJudicial conduct which is not wholly or even partly attributable to innocent functioning. Even in such cases, the proper course for the higher court to adopt is to make note not. 1994 see (erl) 712 5 of his conduct in the confidential record of his work and to use it on proper occasions. The judges in the higher courts have also a duty to judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when judges at the lower leyel are criticised Intemperately and castigated publicly. No greater damage can be done to the administration ofjustice and to the confidence of the peopie in the judiciary than when the judges of the higher courts publicly express lack of faith in the subordinate judges for one reason or the other. It must be remembered that the officers against whom such strictures are publicly passed, stand condemned for ever in the eyes of their subordinates and of the members of the public. No better device can be found to destroy the judiciary from within." The observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v. State of Gujaraf at paragraph 11 would be relevant and apt in the circumstances of this case. ensure I / 10. Solely because an accused has filed an application for transfer, he is not required to express his disinclination. He is required under law to do his duty. He has to perform his duty and not succumb to the pressure put by the accused by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case. If this can be the foundation to transfer a case, it will bring anarchy in the adjudicatory process. The unscrupulous litigants will indulge themselves in court hunting. If they are allowed such room, they do not have to face the trial before a court in which they do not feel comfortable. ” 11. 2 (2016) 3 see 370 / 6 li). Therefore, the order of the trial Court dated 07.08.2019 is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ds SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY (For his Lordships Kind Perusal) \ //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal District Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District, (with records if any) 2. The IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3. The V Additional District Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa District. 4. One CC to Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri C. Prakash Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 6. Nine (09) L.R. Copies. 7. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 8. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 9. Three CD Copies SAM sree \ HIGH COURT DATED:03/02/2025 ORDER ANO^ CRP.No.1189 of 2020 S H FEB 2025 S?J' s. . Current Section , '’>ss^^PK\cy^'^ ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS