K P GNANA PRAKASAM Vs. K LAKSHMI NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Tr. C. M. P. is filed praying for transfer of suit O. S. No. 1048/ 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil judge, Kadapa, to any Court in Chittoor district and pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) THE petitioner is an Advocate by profession. The respondent filed O. S. No. 14/ 2001 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil judge, Pulivendula against the petitioner praying for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note executed by him. It is also stated that the suit promissory note was not at all executed at E. Kothapalli of Pulivendula Mandal of Kadapa District as alleged by the respondent, but actually the same was executed at Srikalahasti of chittoor District. Further certain contentions touching the merits and demerits of the matter relating to material alterations and other aspects also had been averred. It is also stated that the suit was decreed without giving opportunity of adducing evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred A. S. No. 35/2002 on the file of I-Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the said appeal was allowed by Decree and judgment dated 31. 3. 2006 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the case after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence. Subsequently, the said suit was transferred from the principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and renumbered as O. S. No. 1048/2006 pursuant to the orders passed in T. O. P. No. 379/2006 on the file of Principal District Judge, kadapa. It is also stated that the Special power of Attorney-holder of the respondent herein is a practising Advocate in Kadapa and the son-in-law of the respondent is a judicial Officer working as the Chairman, cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad. It is also further stated that after the suit was taken up for trial, the evidence of petitioner's side was also not properly recorded and that the respondent is an influential person and the special Power of Attorney-holder of the respondent is a practising Advocate at kadapa Bar and the way in which the proceedings are conducted in the suit clearly creates an apprehension to the petitioner that he would not get justice before the court where the suit is pending for the reasons specified above. It is also stated that the petitioner had given representation dated 3. 4. 2008 to the Honourable the Chief justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad stating all the proceedings and the manner in which the proceedings are being proceeded with. In such circumstances, the present Tr. C. M. P. had been filed.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that the suit itself is based on the strength of a promissory note. The execution itself is not in serious controversy. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the matter or in relation to the other defences which had been put forth by the petitioner. Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioner moved T. O. P. No. 379/2006 and got the matter transferred at a particular point of time. Again, the present Transfer C. M. P. had been filed to transfer the suit from the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa to any Court in Chittoor District. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this court is thoroughly satisfied that these are only delaying tactics and the Transfer C. M. P. is not bona fide. Accordingly, the Transfer civil Miscellaneous Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.