APHC010074632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 53/2025 Between: Vinapamula Hari Hara Kumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Vinapamula Sri Lakshmi Pushyami and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer the suit in O.S.No.323 of 2018, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur to any other competent Civil Court, Guntur. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: I. The respondent No.1 herein had filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.323 of 2018, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, seeking partition of the suit scheduled property not only for herself, but also for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 through a Registered Will dated 31.01.1973, said to have been executed by their father Late Vinnapamula Seetha Ramaiah. In the aforesaid Will, the testator had made several bequeaths to all the children including daughters, but with regard to the residential property, the same was bequeathed only to his three sons. Subsequently, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are contesting the suit in O.S.No.323 fo 2018 and filed their written statements. Thereafter, during the pendency of the said suit, the Guntur Municipal Corporation had issued a notice dated 18.11.2021, under Sections 456 and 596 of the HMC Act to the petitioners herein, directing them to demolish the suit scheduled property, which was already been partitioned equally between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Subsequently, after the demolition of a portion of the suit scheduled property, the respondent No.1 had filed I.A.No.654 of 2021, seeking temporary injunction against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to not to demolish the suit scheduled property without impleading the Guntur Municiapal Corporation and the same was allowed by the trail Court on 14.12.2021. Subsequently, the defendant Nos.3 and 4/respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein had filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2022, before this Court and this Court had disposed of the said C.M.A., by granting status quo as regards the outstanding structures, while directing the trial Court to complete the trial within six months. II. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the respondent No.1/plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B3. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 also examined the Defendant No.1 as D.W.1 and closed their evidence. Subsequently, the petitioners herein had filed their chief affidavit and due to some objections, the same was returned by the trial Court. He further contended that the petitioners herein had filed the evidence affiadavit of the P.W.1, along with the petition seeking to receive the documents and the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur has partly allowed the said application. Further, the petitioners also reiterated in Paragraph No.11 of their affidavit that the act of the trial Court is vitiated by impropriety, illegality and contrary to record. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to transfer the suit in O.S.No.323 of 2018, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur to any other competent Civil Court, Guntur. 3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for both sides that against the orders passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, in the application which was filed for receiving the documents, the petitioners herein had filed a Revision Petiion vide C.R.P.No.1541 of 2025, before this Court and the same is pending. 4. Heard Sri K.H.V.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sir Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in J.Pedda Reddamma vs B.Twinkle1 and Prem Prakash Mishra vs J.P.Bansal2, wherein the facts of the aforesaid case laws are different to the instant case on hand. 6. As seen from the material available on record, no prima facie evidence has been produced by the petitioners herein to prove that the Presiding Officer i.e., the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur is acting unfairly or influenced by some extortions and considerations. Therefore, basing on the assumptions and without any prima facie evidence, there is no subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners in their affidavit. Moreover, it is 1 2003 0 Supreme(AP) 1184 2 1988 0 Supreme (Raj) 150 brought to the notice of this Court that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order dated 03.07.2025, by directing the learned trial Judge to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.323 of 2018, within a period of six (06) months. Moreover, as per the own case of the petitioner, both the parties have adduced evidence in the suit proceedings and the petitioner herein have filed a petition to receive certain documents and to mark the same through the defendant as exhibits. 7. On a perusal of the order dated 03.07.2025, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A.No.1 fo 2023 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2022, it is noticed that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur to dispose of the main Suit in O.S.No.323 of 2018, within a period of six months from then i.e., by 13.01.2026. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that except making bald allegations against the trial Court, the petitioners had failed to produce prima facie material to show that the presiding officer of the IV Additional District Court, Guntur is acting unfairly or influenced by some extortions and considerations. The apprehensions that are raised by the petitioners are only imaginary and the said apprehensions are not the genuine one. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners and as such the present Transfer Civil Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit 8. With the above observations, 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: 08.09.2025 SRT