Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a revision petition, filed against the order dated 07.08.2019 transferring the original suit from V Additional District Judge to IV Additional District Judge. The court held that an order of transfer should not be routinely passed merely because an interested party expresses apprehension about the judge’s approach, as such transfers undermine judicial independence and morale.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No. 2 of 2013, a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.04.2010. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property and alleged that it had been conveyed to the defendant as security for a loan, with an agreement to reconvey it for Rs. 10 lakhs. The defendant disputed this claim. The suit was at the stage of final arguments when the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, ordered its transfer to the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, without issuing notice to the petitioner. The present revision petition was filed challenging this transfer order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned transfer order was passed without notice to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It was contended that the transfer was based on a request from the plaintiff, who sought a transfer merely because the presiding judge had questioned the limitation aspect of the suit and had insisted on proceeding with arguments. The petitioner submitted that such a reason was neither valid nor sufficient to warrant a transfer and that allowing such transfers would set a dangerous precedent, affecting judicial independence.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent supported the transfer order, contending that the plaintiff had genuine apprehensions about receiving a fair hearing. It was submitted that the judge had been insistent on proceeding with arguments despite the plaintiff’s concerns and that, in such circumstances, the transfer order was justified in the interest of justice.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the sole reason for transferring the case was the plaintiff’s complaint that the presiding judge had raised questions regarding the limitation aspect and had pressed for arguments.
The court observed that such a request for transfer was wholly misconceived and ill-advised. Merely because a judge posed difficult questions or insisted on adherence to procedural law could not be grounds for transfer. The court emphasized that allowing such transfers would undermine judicial independence and embolden parties to seek transfers for strategic reasons. The Court said that the power to transfer cases must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where justice demands it. If transfers were granted merely because a party was dissatisfied with the judge’s approach, it would reflect poorly on the judiciary and affect the confidence of the public in the judicial process.
Decision of the Court:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, allowing the revision petition, set aside the transfer order dated 07.08.2019, and directed that the suit be heard and disposed of by the originally assigned court.
Case Title: Shaik Ahmmad Hussain vs. Shaik Khajapeer (Died) & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Nyapathy Vijay
Case No.: C.R.P. No. 1189 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sri L.J. Veera Reddy
Advocate for the Respondent: Sri C. Prakash Reddy
Picture Source :
