Mere Apprehension Of Adverse Order Not Ground To Transfer Civil Suit U/S 24 CPC: Telangana High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice Renuka Yara dismissed a transfer petition seeking to move a civil suit from the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, and declined to pass any consequential directions, with no order as to costs. The petitioner, the plaintiff in the suit, alleged that a fair trial was unlikely and claimed the presiding officer had been influenced by one of the defendants, relying in part on a photograph taken at a public event connected to land handed over for a district court complex. The Court held that an expectation of an adverse order is not a basis for transfer and said such public photographs cannot support a presumption of bias, noting that civil court officers cannot realistically identify litigants to avoid such situations.
The petitioner filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of a civil suit pending before the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal. The suit concerned a property dispute between private parties.
Also Read: High Courts Cannot Nullify Ongoing Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court
The petitioner contended that he apprehended that he would not receive a fair trial before the said Court. It was alleged that certain municipal authorities were not facilitating the trial and were making allegations regarding his intentions to grab land meant for laying a road to the District Court complex. The petitioner further alleged that a private respondent had claimed influence over the Presiding Officer and relied on a photograph showing the presence of the Presiding Officer and the respondent at a public event relating to handing over of land for construction of the District Court complex.
Counsel for the respondents opposed the petition, contending that no grounds for transfer were made out and that the allegations were baseless.
The Court observed that “This Court is not inclined to make any observation with respect to the merits of the respective parties to ensure that neither of them suffers prejudice when the suit is adjudicated before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge.”
On the ground of apprehension, the Court recorded that “mere apprehension of adverse order cannot be a ground for transfer as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Bala Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala.”
With regard to the photograph relied upon by the petitioner, the Court observed that “the appearance of the Presiding Officer in a public gathering of handing over of land by the Revenue Officials which figures respondent No.3 cannot be a ground for transfer as the members of the Bar would be not attending such events and it is not possible to prevent anybody from attending such a gathering.” The Court further stated that “it is almost impossible for Presiding Officers to identify parties in civil suits to avoid the predicament of being photographed with them in public gatherings.”
The Court also noted that “the subject matter of the suit is not concerned with the property that is entrusted to the District Court for construction of a Court complex.” It recorded that “the subject property in the suit is property of private parties for which any Presiding Officer is unlikely to have any kind of personal interest and is amenable for being influenced.”
On the additional submissions, the Court stated that “Reasons which are not mentioned as orally submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be a ground for transfer.” It further recorded that “Only when reasons/grounds for transfer are mentioned and their veracity is considered, can this Court arrive at any conclusion about the need for transfer.”
Regarding the plea that amendment of the suit may lead to transfer on pecuniary grounds, the Court observed that “The eventuality of transfer of the suit on account of amendments based solely on merits is different from seeking transfer on apprehension that he may not get fair trial.”
The Court stated that “This Court is not inclined to transfer the O.S. No.31 of 2019 at this juncture on account of apprehension of not getting fair trial or false claims made by respondent No.3 in the Bar Association. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. Amarender Reddy, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohd Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Mr. H. Venugopal, learned senior counsel; Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.5
Case Title: Mr. B. Narsimha Reddy v. The Commissioner, Thumukunta Municipality and Others
Case Number: Tr.C.M.P. No. 392 of 2025
Bench: Justice Renuka Yara
