Mere Apprehension Of Adverse Order Not Ground To Transfer Suit U/S 24 CPC: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has rejected a transfer petition seeking transfer of a civil suit from the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, reiterating that mere apprehension of an adverse order is not a ground for transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rejecting allegations of influence, the Court observed that it is “almost impossible” for presiding officers in civil courts to identify parties in pending suits so as to avoid being photographed with them at public events, and that such circumstances cannot give rise to a presumption of bias.

Justice Renuka Yara dismissed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, holding that the grounds urged by the petitioner did not justify the exercise of the Court's power to transfer the suit.

The transfer petition arose out of a suit pending before the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District. The petitioner sought transfer of the suit on the ground that he apprehended that he would not receive a fair trial before the said court.

According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 had allegedly stated before the Bar Association that he had influenced the Presiding Officer and that the petitioner would not succeed in the suit. In this regard, the petitioner also relied on a photograph showing respondent No. 3 in the company of the Presiding Officer at a public event related to the handover of land for the construction of the District Court complex.

It was further alleged that other respondents, particularly the Commissioners of the Medchal Malkajgiri District, had made allegations against the petitioner that he intended to seize land meant for laying a road to the District Court complex, and that these circumstances created an apprehension of bias. The petitioner also stated that there were other reasons that he could not put on record or submit orally before the Court.

Conversely, the respondents opposed the transfer, contending that the allegations were baseless and that no grounds were made out for invoking Section 24 CPC.

The High Court, while hearing the case, placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in R. Bala Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, reiterating that “mere apprehension of adverse order cannot be a ground for transfer”.

Further, dealing with the reliance placed on the photograph, the Court observed that the event in question was a public gathering attended by members of the Bar, revenue officials and court staff. The Court noted that it is almost impossible for presiding officers in civil courts to identify parties to suits pending before them in order to avoid being photographed with them at such events.

“Further, the appearance of the Presiding Officer in a public gathering of handing over of land by the Revenue Officials which figures respondent No.3 cannot be a ground for transfer 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 gatherings”, the Court reasoned.

It also observed that the suit in question concerns private property as its subject matter and is not related to the land entrusted for the construction of the District Court complex, noting that “any Presiding Officer is unlikely to have any kind of personal interest and is amenable for being influenced”.

As regards the petitioner's contention that there were other reasons which could not be put on record, the Court held that unstated grounds cannot be taken into consideration while deciding a transfer petition, and that only grounds placed before the Court can be examined.

The Court also observed that a possible amendment of the plaint leading to change of pecuniary jurisdiction is distinct from a transfer sought on the ground of apprehension of bias.

Consequently, holding that no grounds were made out to warrant transfer of the suit, under Section 24 CPC, on account of not getting a fair trial or false claims made by the third respondent, the Telangana High Court dismissed the transfer petition with no costs.

Case Name: B. Narsimha Reddy, Medchal Malkajgiri District v The Commissioner, Thumukunta Municipality, Medchal Malkajgiri District and others

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order