Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy, PDJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present:- Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy,

Prl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 27 th day of December, 2018.

Tr.O.P.No.377/2018 & Tr.O.P.No.378/2018 &

Tr.O.P.No.379/2018

Tr.O.P.No.377/2018

Between:

L.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy. …Petitioner. AND

1. L.Venkat Lakshmamma (died)

2. P.Krishnamma.

3. L.Chenna Reddy.

4. L.Krishna Reddy. ... Respondents.

Tr.O.P.No.378/2018

Between:-

Harijana Narayanamma. …Petitioner. AND

1. The State of A.P., represented by District Collector, Anantapuramu.

2. The Tahsildar, Tadimarri.

3. The Sub Registrar of Assurance, Tadipatri.

4. Y.Lakshmamma.

5. M.Sivaiah.

6. Y.Sreenivasa Reddy. ... Respondents.

Tr.O.P.No.379/2018

Between:-

1. D.Aswarthamma.

2. D.Bhaskar Reddy. …Petitioners. AND

1. Y.Sreenivasa Reddy.

2. Y.Venkatarami Reddy.

3. Y.Parameswara Reddy. ... Respondents.

These petitions are coming on this day i.e., 27.12.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Rami Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri P.Guru Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 in Tr.O.P.No.377/2018, and Sri Y.Lepakshi Naidu, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 3 and Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for Respondents 4 to 6 in Tr.O.P.378/2018 and Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 2 in Tr.O.P.379/2018 and on perusing the records this Court made the following :-

COMMON ORDER

Tr.O.P.No.377/2018

This petition is filed by the petitioner under section 24 of Civil

Procedure Code.

The case of the petitioner is that he is the plaintiff in O.S.33/2009 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram. It is further case of the petitioner that the suit is coming up for arguments that the

Presiding Officer has openly informed the petitioner in public court that he has no case in the suit and the Presiding Officer is causing obstructions to the counsel of the petitioner at each and every step, openly saying that the petitioner has no case in the suit and the Presiding Officer has openly proclaimed that the suit is going to be dismissed. That the petitioner apprehends that he may not get justice if the above suit is tried in the court of JCJ, Dharmavaram and requested to transfer the case to any other court.

Tr.O.P.No.378/2018

This is petition is filed by the petitioner under section 24 of Civil

Procedure Code.

The case of the petitioner is that she is the plaintiff in O.S.158/2012 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram. It is further case of the petitioner that the suit is coming up for arguments that the

Presiding Officer has openly informed the petitioner in public court that she has no case in the suit and the Presiding Officer is causing obstructions to the counsel of the petitioner at each and every step, openly 3 saying that the petitioner has no case in the suit and the Presiding Officer has openly proclaimed that the suit is going to be dismissed. That the petitioner apprehends that she may not get justice if the above suit is tried

in the court of JCJ, Dharmavaram and requested to transfer the case to

any other court.

Tr.O.P.No.379/2018

This is petition is filed by the petitioners under section 24 of Civil

Procedure Code.

The case of the petitioners is that they are plaintiffs in

O.S.120/2012 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram. It is further case of the petitioners that the suit is coming up for arguments that the Presiding Officer has openly informed the petitioner in public court that they have no case in the suit and the

Presiding Officer is causing obstructions to the counsel of the petitioners at each and every step, openly saying that the petitioners have no case in the suit and the Presiding Officer has openly proclaimed that the suit is going to be dismissed. That the petitioners apprehends that they may not get justice if the above suit is tried in the court of JCJ, Dharmavaram and requested to transfer the case to any other court.

2. The respondent No.4 in Tr.O.P.377/2018 filed the counter along with adoption memo of Respondent No.2, denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and further stating that the respondent was present in the court along with his advocate on all the adjournments from 10.09.2018 to 17.12.2018 and that nothing had occurred as stated by the petitioner. He has further contended that all the specific dates and 4 circumstances in which the Presiding Officer had addressed the petitioner are not stated. It is further contended that the case is adjourned from 10.09.2018 to 06.12.2018 for arguments and that these cases were adjourned as the counsel for the petitioner before the trial court had reported not ready and the court was pleased to adjourn the case to 17.12.2018 at his request. That the case is of Pre 2013 case and the trial court was under constrain to dispose of the case and had requested both the counsels to complete the arguments by 17.12.2018.

3. The remarks of the Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram are called for. The learned trial judge had stated that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed even before he had taken charge of the said court and that except for making an omnibus allegations, no date was furnished when the alleged proclamation was made and no material is filed to substantiate the allegations in the petition. Further, the trial judge denied that he never made such proclamation and he had never interfered with the petitioner’s counsel in prosecution of the case. The trial court had pressed for disposal of the cases as per mandate of the Hon’ble High

Court.

4. Heard.

5. Perusal of the records in Tr.O.P.377/2018, 378/2018 and 379/2018, shows that the same allegations are made without even a change in the order of sentences in the petitions. In all the three petitions, the cases had reached the stage of arguments. All the three cases are Pre 2013 cases. The petitioners had made grave allegations, but have not mentioned any details of the dates on which the events have transpired.

The dockets of the said cases only show that the court had directed 5 arguments to be presented and a memo was filed stating that transfer orders will be obtained and adjournment be granted and after filing the memo, the counsel for the petitioner before the trial court had walked out of the court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners before this court had contended that all the events that transpired in the court would not be part of the docket the same cannot be accept for the reason that when the petitioners have made grave allegations against the court, it is for them to substantiate to them. More so when the docket, which is a record of the proceedings before the court, does not show that such events have occurred. Further the learned counsel for the respondents filed counters and contended that no such events occurred. In view of these circumstances, this court finds that the petitioners have failed to make out any ground for transfer of the cases and further have made unsubstantiated allegations.

6. In the result, the petitions are dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-S.Sasidhar Reddy

DISTRICT JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Appendix of Evidence -Nil-

Sd/-S.Sasidhar Reddy

DISTRICT JUDGE

//True copy//

Chief Administrative Officer, District Court, Ananthapuramu