IPPILI LAKSHMAN RAO Vs. IPPILLI JAGANNATH SWAMY ALIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the civil revisions are directed against the common Order Dated 11.12.2006 passed by the Learned District Judge, Koraput in T.R. No. 5 and 6 of 2006 rejecting applications for transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE Petitioner as the Plaintiff has filed C.S. No. 16 of 203 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada for partition of the family properties. The Opposite Party in CRP No. 37 of 2007 has also filed C.S. No. 4 of 2003 in the said Court for eviction of the Petitioner from two godowns, which he claims to be in occupation as per the decision of the Arbitrators and for recovery of rent. A petition was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rayagada under Section 10 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to stay further proceeding of C.S. No. 4 of 2003 till disposal of C.S. No. 16 of 2003. The said prayer was rejected by the Trial Court and both the suits were directed to be heard analogously. Thereafter, both the transfer applications were filed by the Petitioner before the District Judge, Koraput to transfer the suits to some other Court on the apprehension that he may not get fair deal, even justice from the said Court. The Learned District Judge, Koraput after hearing the parties by his Order Dated 11.12.2006 rejected the said applications holding that those are devoid of merit.

(3.) MR . Nanda, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties vehemently contends that merely because some adverse orders have been passed, the same can hardly be a ground to attribute bias against the Court and justify transfer of the cases. He further submits that it is the settled principle of law that justice must not only be done but also appear to have been done and a party is entitled to a fair deal in the hand of the Presiding Officer.