CHINASWAMY NAIDU G Vs. K PADMANABHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.S. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the order under revision.

(2.) What weighed with the learned District Judge, Chittoor District, to order transfer O.P.No.410 of 1998 filed by the respondent herein is explicitly stated by the learned District Judge himself in paragraph (6) of the order which reads as under:

(3.) In my considered opinion, the reason given by the learned District Judge is totally perverse and not at all germane for the decision-making in the O.P. At the time of hearing, Mr. P. Govind Reddy, read out the grounds stated in the O.P. for seeking transfer of Execution Petition. The second ground stated in the Transfer O.P., it appears, appealed to the learned District Judge as reflected in his reasoning to order the Transfer O.P. It is highly demeaning and denigrating to attribute a faculty to any Judge that the mere fact that in a litigation a party's son or any other relative is a practising Counsel in a Court would influence the mind of the Judge of that Court and judgment that may be delivered by him in such litigation would be biased and partisan. If any Judge has such weak mental faculty, in my considered opinion, such Judge would be totally unfit to occupy the post held by him.