IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 OF 2011 Between: Nidumolu Rajendra Prasad ..... Petitioner AND Tamma Janaki & 3 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 OF 2011 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), is filed by the petitioner to withdraw R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010 from the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The brief facts are as follows: The sole respondent in the R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010 who is the landlord of the petition schedule premises died on 18.08.2010. In the Memo filed by the appellant on 07.09.2010, particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have been furnished. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition in I.A.No.2085 of 2010 in R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010 to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record. While the said petition was pending, a petition in I.A.No.2216 of 2010 was filed in I.A.No.2085 of 2010 in R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010 under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short, ‘C.R.P.’) for permission to represent the legal heirs by the advocate who claims to have a General Power of Attorney on their behalf. Vide order, dated 31.12.2010, that petition was allowed. Thereafter, the present petition is filed to transfer the R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010 stating that without allowing the legal representatives application in I.A.No.2085 of 2010 in R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010, entertaining the petition under Rule 32 of C.R.P. filed by the Advocate is not correct, and that question of entertaining the petition under Rule 32 of C.R.P. does not arise when the Legal Representatives petition is pending, and, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner lost confidence in the Presiding Officer as the petitioner contended that the Presiding Officer was supporting the advocate as he was practicing in the same Court. Hence, the present petition. 4. The order, dated 31.12.2010, in I.A.No.2216 of 2010 in I.A.No.2085 of 2010 in R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010 has become final as the Civil Revision Petition filed against that order has been dismissed by this Court, vide order, dated 20.01.2011, in C.R.P.No.54 of 2011. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that mere allowing the petition in I.A.No.2216 of 2010 in I.A.No.2085 of 2010 in R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010, filed under Rule 32 of C.R.P. without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent is said to be the ground to apprehend that justice may not be done in the same Court. Simply because the Advocate who is the General Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the legal representatives is a practicing advocate in the same Court, it cannot be said to be a ground to transfer the case in the absence of any other allegation. Mere suspicion, however, strong cannot be a ground to transfer the same. In view of the fact that the petition in I.A.No.2216 of 2010 in I.A.No.2085 of 2010 in R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010, filed under Rule 32 of C.R.P. is allowed, it is not proper to entertain a doubt against the Presiding Officer that the petitioner may not get justice in that Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to transfer the same. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 8th March, 2011 KL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 OF 2011 Date: 8th March, 2011 KL