THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.04 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioner/claimant herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, >the C.P.C.?), seeking to withdraw E.A.No.141 of 2025 in E.P.No.436 of 2024, on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kurnool and transfer the same to the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool for trial and disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through virtual mode. 3. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the Execution Application as narrated in paragraph No.8 of the petition are extracted below: <8. It is submitted that this petitioner was not afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to prosecute his claim petition effectively. Despite repeated attempts, important interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner have not been entertained, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner’s rights. The petitioner was also restrained from putting relevant and material questions during cross- examination of respondent No.1 as RW1, and the petitioner was also not permitted to rely on the said document. Further, the vital witness, i.e., the document writer of respondent No.1’s document, was also not summoned, and the same is seriously affecting this petitioner’s case. The said events cumulatively are affecting the case of this petitioner, and they are restraining this petitioner’s fair opportunity in presenting his case. In the said events, it is just and necessary for transfer of the above claim petition 2 for fair and proper adjudication of the issues involved in the said proceedings, and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents in the event of transfer. Otherwise, serious prejudice will be caused to this petitioner.= 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent herein obtained a decree in O.S.No.8 of 2005 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District Judge Court, Kurnool, dated 25.10.2007, and respondent No.2 preferred a First Appeal before the Appellate Court. Subsequently, after disposal of the proceedings, the 1st respondent herein filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.436 of 2024 before the Executing Court, i.e., the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 5. The petitioner herein filed E.A.No.141 of 2025 in the executing petition proceedings before the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. An Execution Petition was filed before the concerned Executing Court, which was pending for adjudication. The petitioner herein, who is the applicant, filed a claim petition vide E.A.No.141 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that in E.A.No.141 of 2025, both sides adduced evidence and the evidence on both sides is closed. The apprehension made by the petitioner for seeking transfer of E.A.No.141 of 2025 is that the petitioner was not afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to prosecute his claim application effectively. The petitioner further contended in the affidavit that, despite repeated attempts, the important interlocutory applications 3 filed by the petitioner have not been entertained by the Court below, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner?s rights, the petitioner moved an application before the I Additional District Judge Court to issue summons to a witness to give evidence in the E.P. proceedings as P.W.6 in support of the petitioner?s case. The copy of the said petition enclosed to the petition goes to show that the learned I Additional District Judge returned the said application, instead of complying with the same before the concerned Executing Court after completion of evidence on both sides, the petitioner herein approached this Court seeking transfer of E.A.No.141 of 2025 in E.P.No.436 of 2024, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 6. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the case are that <the petitioner was not afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to prosecute his claim petition effectively=. While dealing with an application for transfer of a case, in Capt. Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors.1, the Full Bench of the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done. It is also observed by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case law that it is required on the part of the Court to see whether the 1 MANU/SC/0797/2009 4 apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must also appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension. In the case at hand, the apprehension of petitioner is not a reasonable and genuine. 7. Vague and vexatious allegations, without any element of truth, on the working of the Court below, not supported by any fact or circumstance, will not ipso facto be sufficient ground for transfer of a case. The transfer of a case can be made only when the same is reasonably required under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any grounds to entertain the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. 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: 07.01.2026 MH ] 5 14 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.04 of 2026 Date: 07.01.2026 MH