APHC010028842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 50/2025 Between: 1. KARIMSETTY RAMA VENKATA CHANDRA SEKHAR, CHANDRA SEKHAR S/O.SATYA NARAYANA, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS R/O.DNO. 19-23-12,2NDLANE,BANKCOLONY BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. KARIMSETTY SATYANARAYANA, S/O. VENKATARATNAM AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHINNA GOLLAPALEM VILLAGE, KRUTHIVENNU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT 2. KUNASANI RAJA RAJESWARI, W/O. NAGESWARARAO AGED49YEARS,OCC.HOUSEWIFE,R/O. DNO.1-14C, KOMALALPUDIVILLAGE,KRUTHIVENNUMANDAL,ELURUDISTRICT 3. SADANALA DHANALAXMI, W/O.NARAYANA MURTHY,AGED 46YEARS, OCCHOUSE WIFE,R/O.CHINA GOLLAPALEM VILLAGE KRUTHIVENNU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Withdraw the suit bearing OS No. 101 of 2018 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, and transfer the same to any of the District Courts at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.101 of 2018 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam Krishna District during pendency of above Transfer CMP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M P V N V SASTRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.50 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking for withdrawal of O.S.No.101 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam and transfer the same to any of the District Courts at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, for trial and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The respondents herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.101 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, seeking relief for partition of plaint schedule property against the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein engaged an Advocate and they are contesting the said suit proceedings. The petitioner further pleaded that the suit i.e., O.S.No.101 of 2018, is coming for cross-examination of DW1 and during the cross-examination of DW1, the trial Court instead of recording his answer to the question raised by the other side counsel, recorded the statement made by the opposite counsel and that he raised an objection before the trail Court. The trial Court did not accept his request and recording the version of other side counsel instead of recording the answers of the DW1 to the questions raised by the other side counsel and that the petitioner is apprehending that the justice will not be done in the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Hence, this petition is filed. 3. Leanred counsel for the respondents submitted that there are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner and the present Transfer Civil Miscellanoues Peititon may be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5. The ground for the transfer of the suit in O.S. No. 101 of 2018 by the petitioner, urged in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, is that the said suit is coming up for cross-examination before the trial Court for recording the evidence of DW1. However, the trial Court, instead of recording his answers, recorded the questions raised by the other side counsel. Except for making bald allegations, no prima facie material has been produced by the petitioner to show that the Presiding Officer of the trail Court is acting unfairly or influenced by some extortions and considerations. 6. The law is well settled that “the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjunctures and surmises.” 7. The Apex Court in a case of Captain Amarinder Singh vs Parkash Singh Badal & Ors 1 held as follows: 12. “…..mere allegations that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. In other words, the court has further to see whether apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension.” 8. Necessity for transfer of suits from one Court to another would arise if only there exists any similarity of cause of action or commonality of the parties. When such situation does not exist, the relief claimed for the transfer of suit cannot be granted. Section 24 of CPC confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage either on the application by any party or suo motu. Although discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straight jacket of any cast, iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gain said that the power of transfer of the case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. 9. As seen from the material on record, no prima facie material has been placed by the petitioner to show that the presiding officer of the IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, is acting unfairly or influenced by some extortions and considerations. The law is well settled that “mere apprehension is not a ground for seeking transfer of a civil suit from one Court to another Court.” 1 (2009)6 SCC 260 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on both sides that the suit in O.S.No.101 of 2018, which is pending for adjudication before the IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, is now coming up for cross-examination of DW1 and the suit has been instituted in the year 2018, since 7 years has been elapsed but it was not disposed of till date. 11. On considering the submissions made by the leanred counsel appearing on both sides that it is desirable to direct the IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, to dispose of the suit i.e., O.S.No.101 of 2018, within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and send the compliance report to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such the present Transfer Civil Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 13. Resultantly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 24.10.2025 CVD