B. Narsimha Reddy Vs Commissioner

¶1

t34421

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND n/VENTy SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

Tr.C.M.p.No: 392 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

B' Narsimha Reddy, s/o Late B. Ranga Reddy. aged 6g years, occ: Agriculture, r/o villa No. 7, Gummadi pristze park, cuiota pocrramparrv tvj, Medchal (M), Medchal-Matkajgiri Dist_500014

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

1^{commissioner, Thumugn!"Munciparity Medchar-Markajgiri} District,-s0o 0zg 2. Barrenukabai^yuddam Reddy (Oiedy

¶12

Barrenukabai Rathan Reddy, s/o Late B. chnadra Reddy, Aged 70 years, occ business, r/o villa No. 66, Gummadi prestige parr, cunotalocnampirri M, Medchal -S00 014

¶13

BarrenukabaiAshok Rgddy, s/o Late B. chnadra Reddy, Aged 65 years, occ business, r/o Villa No. 66, Gummadi prestige parr, Cunota-pocnamp"rrv ru, Medchat -500 014

¶14

Barrenukabai Ravinder Reddy, s/o Late B. chnadra Reddy, Aged 62 years, 'Medchal-Soo occ business, 014 villa No. s4, Aparna-palm . Meadows, Gundra poJhampatty (v),rs'rr},qrrr \

¶15

6' Commissioner, Gundlapochimpally Muncipality Medchat-Malkajgiri District,500 014

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court ,;, ;; preased to withdraw the o'S'No'31 of 2019 on the file of Honouiable Additionll Slnior civit Judge, MedchatMalkajgiri District at Medchal and transfer the rr*. io Honouraole Hyderabad city Civil Courts

¶18

l.A. NO:1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support_of the petition, frre nign court may 'Hon,ble oe pleased to stay a1 !.fr1"1^{proceedings in o.s.No.31of 2019 on -the fite} tf Additionat senior civil Judge, Medchar-Markajgiri District at Medchar, p"noing ;;p;r;il'ffiiransfer C.M.P.

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶21

Between:

¶22

Barrenukabai Rathan Reddy, s/o Late B. chnadra Reddy, Aged 70 years, occ business, r/o Villa No. 66, Gummadi Prestige^park, Gundla^pochampalry (V), Medchal^..500 014

¶23

... Petitioner/Respondent

¶24

AND

¶25

1 B. Narsimha Reddy, s/o Late B. Ranga Reddy. aged 68 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o Villa No. 7, Gummadi Pristze Park, Gundla pochampally (v), Medchal (M), Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist-500014

¶26

,.. RespondenUPetitioner

¶27

Commissioner, Thumukunta Muncipality Medchal-Malkajgiri District,-500 078

¶28

Barrenukabai Yuddam Reddy (died)

¶29

Barrenrkabai Ashok Reddy, s/o Late B. chnadra Reddy, Aged 6s years, occ businer;s, r/o villa No. 66, Gummadi Prestige^park, Gundla pochampally (V), Medchirl -500 014

¶30

Barrenukabai Ravinder Reddy, s/o Late B. chnadra Reddy, Aged 62 years, occ bur;iness, Villa No. 54, Aparna-palm Meadows, Gundla pochampally (v), Medchal-S0O 014

¶31

Commir;sioner, Gundlapochimpally Muncipality Medchal-Malkajgiri District,500 01.t

¶32

(Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are not necessary parties ilffiJ;:rl?l:l

¶33

Petition under Section 148 R/w 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the irterim order dated 1411012025 passed in tA No.1 of 2025 in TRCMp No 392 of 202!;.

¶34

Couns'el for the Petitioner: Sri D. Amarender Reddy

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri Mohd lslamuddin Ansari

¶36

counsel for th,r Respondent No.S: Mr. H. venugopal, senior counset and Mr. K. Durga Prasad

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶39

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶40

Tr.C.M.P. No. 392 of 2025

¶41

O3'd FEBRUARY,202;6

¶42

Between:

¶43

Mr. B. Narsimha Reddy, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶44

Petitioner

¶45

AND

¶46

The Commissioner, Thumukunta Municipality, Medchal Malkajgiri District and others.

¶47

...Respondents

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed uhder Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the petitioner to transfer O.S. No. 3L of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

¶50

Heard Mr. D. Amarender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 as well as Mr. H. Venugopal,

\ \

2

RY,J TRCMP_392_2025

learned senior counsel and Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned coun:;el for the respondent No.5. Perused the record.

¶55

In sum and substance, the contention of the learned courlsrel for the petitioner is that he has apprehension that he would not get fair trial before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal. Furtht:r his contention is that respondent No.l-the Commissioner, Thumukunta Muncipality Medchal Malka,giri District and respondent No.6-the Commissioner Gundlrpochimpally Muncipality, Medchal Malkajgiri District, are not facilitating trial but making unnecessary allegat;ons against the petitioner about his intentions to grab land which was meant for laying road to the District Court c:omplex, Medchal Malkajgiri.

¶56

For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the allegatirrns are made about the learned Additional Senior Civil Jttdge, Medchal Malkajgiri, being influenced by the respondent No.3 (defendant No.3). Said respondent No.3 is allegedl;r making statements in Bar Association that he has \pfluenced the Presiding Officer and therefore, the

¶57

RY,J TRCMP_392_2025

¶58

3

¶59

petitioner (plaintiff) would not be able to succeed in his case. For that purpose, photograph at page No. 130 of material papers is relied upon to show that at the time of handing over the land for construction of District Court complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, respondent No.3 was present along with the Presiding Officer. It is a point to be noted that said handing over took place in open area attended by members of Bar, Revenue Officials and staff of the Court.

¶60

In addition to the aforementioned contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner says that there are other factors which he cannot put on paper and which he cannot submit orally before this Court.

¶61

6: Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 5 submitted that there are no grounds for transfer and baseless allegations are made against a1l the concerned.

¶62

Both the learned counsel have taken this Court to the merits of the case of the respective parties. This'Court is not inclined to make any observation with respect to the merits of the respective parties to ensure that neither of t\em suffers prejudice when the suit is adjudicated before \

"/

RY,J TRCMP_3g2_2025

4

the learned Additional Senior civil Judge, Medchal Malkrejgiri District at Medchal.

¶67

Coming to the grounds of transfer, mere apprehension of adverse order cannot be a ground for transl'er as per the judgment of the Honbre supreme court in R. Bala l{rishna Pillai a. stqte of Keratar. Further, the appearance of the^presiding officer in a public gathering of handing over of land by the Revenue officiats which figures respondent No.3 cannot be a ground for transfr:r 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. Further, it is almost impossible for Presiding officers to identify parties in civil suits to avoid the predicament of being photographed with them in public glatherings.

¶68

Further, 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. The subject rroperty in the suit is property of private parties for

¶69

'1zooo; 7 scc r2g \ \

¶70

RY,J TRCMP_392_2025

¶71

5

¶72

which any Presiding Officer is unlikely to have any kind of personal interest and is amenable for being influenced.

¶73

Reasons which are not mentioned as orally submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be a ground for transfer. 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.

¶74

\t

¶75

1 1. Apart from the aforementioned grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a petition is filed seeking amendment to the prayer, wherein, declaration of title as well as recovery of possession are sought and once said amendments are carried out, the case may be mad.e over to some other Court on account of pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶76

L2. 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.

¶77

6

¶78

RY,J TRCMP_392_2025

¶79

This Court is not inclined to transfer the O.S. No.31 of 2ol9 at this juncture on account of apprehension of not getting fair trial or false claims made by respondent No.3 in the Bar Association.

¶80

l+. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous^petition is disrnissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶81

Miscellaneous petitions, if &oy, pending in this petition, shall stand closed.

¶82

Sd/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1' The Additional Senior Civil JucJge, tvledchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal 2. One CC to Sri D. Amarender Reddy, Advocate lOirUCl 3. One CC to Sri Mohd lslamuddin Ansari, Advocale tOpUCI 4. One CC) to Mr. K. Durga^prasad, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CE)Copres

Kam/BA

Yt-

4

/

I

HIGH^(}OURT