( 1 ) THIS application is filed seeking transfer of O. S. No. 16 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Madanapally to any other competent Court for disposal according to law on the ground that the petitioners, who are defendants 4,5 and 6 in the suit, have an apprehension that they may not get justice because of the attitude of the presiding Officer of the Court in proceeding with the case. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid O. S. No. 16 of 1998 was filed by minor plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, represented by their mother and guardian, seeking partition of the properties specified in the schedules appended to the plaint into three equal shares and for allotment of two such shares to them. The suit, initially, was instituted against respondents 3 and 4 only as defendents 1 and 2. Subsequently on I. A. No. 1 of 2000, filed by the petitioners and G. Santhamma they were impleaded as defendants 3 to 6, by the order dated 06-08-2000. As per the order in I. A. No. 114 of 2002 dated 24-04-2002 respondents 7 and 8, were impleaded as defendants 7 and 8. ( 3 ) I. A. NO. 323 of 2002 for framing an additional issue, and I. A. No. 324 of 2002 to recall P. W. 2 for further cross-examination, filed by the 3rd respondent and I. A. No. 39 of 2002 filed by the 5th respondent seeking leave to amend her written statement clarifying the shares to which she and the petitioners are entitled to in the plaint-A schedule properties, were dismissed by the learned Judge on 23-10-2002. Questioning the dismissal of the said I. As. , C. R. Ps. 5388, 5372 and 4955 of 2002 respectively were preferred to this Court. C. R. P. No. 4955 of 2002 was disposed of on 18-11-2002 at the stage of admission by remitting I. A. No. 39 of 2002 to trial Court for fresh consideration. After remand thelearned trial Judge allowed i. A. No. 39 of 2002 and permitted the 5th respondent to amend the written statement. C. R. P. No. 4955 of 2002 was disposed of on 18-11-2002 at the stage of admission by remitting I. A. No. 39 of 2002 to trial Court for fresh consideration. After remand thelearned trial Judge allowed i. A. No. 39 of 2002 and permitted the 5th respondent to amend the written statement. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order in I. A. No. 17 of 1999 filed by respondents 1 and 2, i. e. , minor plaintiffs, seeking interim maintenance or in the alternative to appoint a Receiver to manage the plaint A and B schedule properties, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the minor plaintiffs third respondent (first defendant) preferred c. R. P. No. 1628 of 1999 to this Court, which was allowed in part and the maintenance awarded by the trial Court was reduced to rs. 2,000/- from Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since third respondent failed to pay the maintenance ordered to be paid to them, respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed I. A. No. 252 of 2001 seeking appointment of receiver in respect of plaint A and B schedule properties without impleading the fifth respondent and the petitioners as parties to the said petition. The said petition was allowed and an Advocate Receiver was appointed to manage the plaint A and B schedule properties. Alleging that receiver ought not to have been appointed without giving notice of I. A. No. 252 of 2001 to her and that she was not made aware of the order dated 21-01-2002 passed by the trial Court appointing an Advocate-Receiver, third petitioner preferred C. M. A. No. 1014 of 2002 to this Court questioning the order appointing a Receiver. Since it was represented by both sides that recording of evidence was completed and arguments were also heard and that the suit was reserved for judgment, a Division Bench of this court by its order dated 10-10-2002 directed the trial court to dispose of the suit preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In the meanwhile petitioners filed I. A. No. 347 of 2002 under Rule 2 of order 13 CPC to receive certain documents, i. A. No. 348 of 2002 to send Exs, A-16 and ex. A-20 to a handwriting expert and I. A. No, 349 of 2002 for impleading the purchasers under Exs. In the meanwhile petitioners filed I. A. No. 347 of 2002 under Rule 2 of order 13 CPC to receive certain documents, i. A. No. 348 of 2002 to send Exs, A-16 and ex. A-20 to a handwriting expert and I. A. No, 349 of 2002 for impleading the purchasers under Exs. A-16 to A-20 as parties to the suit. First petitioner (4th defendant) seem to have filed O. S. No. 136 of 2002 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapally, for cancellation of Exs. A-16 to A-20. I. A. Nos. 347 to 349 of 2002 filed by the petitioners were dismissed on 23-10-2002. Against the orders of dismissal of those I. As. C. R. P. Nos. 5022,5055 and 5027 of 2002 respectively were preferred to this Court. In C. R. P. No. 5005 of 2002 this Court ordered notice before admission to respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) and in C. M. P. No. 20774 of 2002 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the suit, initially for a period of three weeks from 01-11-2002. On 22-11-2002 the interim stay granted earlier was extended by four weeks and on. 27-12-2002 the stay was extended till further orders. ( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that in spite of the stay granted in C. M. P. No. 20774 of 2002 in C. R. P. No. 5005 of 2002 the trial Court was insisting on taking up further proceedings in the suit and had dismissed I. A. No. 1 of 2003 filed by the fifth respondent to receive certain documents on 06-01-2003, and had appointed a commissioner to record the evidence of fifth respondent on 20-12-2002 and that the commissioner recorded the evidence of fifth respondent and filed his report on 21-01-2003, and that I. A. Nos. 488, 489 and 490 of 2002, filed by the third respondent, were taken up for enquiry, ignoring of the order of stay passed by this court in C. M. P. No. 20774 of 2002 in C. R. P. No. 5005 of 2002, and that the petition filed by the first petitioner on 12-06-2003 seeking adjournment of the suit on the ground that interim stay granted by the Court is still in force, was not entertained on the ground that the time granted by the Division Bench in c. M. A. No. 1014 of 2002 to dispose of the suit expires by 01-07-2003, and the trial Court recorded on the docket that the suit is reserved for judgment even though arguments were not addressed and the counsel were not called upon to address arguments. ( 6 ) IN the above circumstances petitioners contend that they have apprehension that they may not get justice in the trial Court and so the case may be transferred to any other competent Court for trial. When this petition came up for admission before my learned brother PSN, J. he called for the remarks from the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge sent her remarks. ( 7 ) ON behalf of respondents 1 and 2, (plaintiffs), their next friend filed her counter affidavit. The averments, in brief, therein are, as she and her husband (third respondent/first defendant) did not beget any male issue, petitioners were goading her husband to go in for a second marriage to beget a male child and were also instigating him to demand dowry from her aged parents. Since her husband intended to sell away the joint family properties, she filed the suit for partition on behalf of the minor daughters and filed a petition for interim maintenance or in the alternative for appointment of receiver in which interim maintenance of rs. 3,000/- per month was awarded and in c. R. P. No. 1628 of 1999 the said maintenance was reduced to Rs. 2,000/- per month. Since her husband did not pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondents 1 and 2 towards their maintenance, at the instance of the petitioners, she filed a petition for appointment of Receiver, in which sri C. Pratap Reddy, Advocate was appointed as Receiver. He took possession of the plaint a and B Schedule properties and auctioned the leasehold right. Since her husband did not pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondents 1 and 2 towards their maintenance, at the instance of the petitioners, she filed a petition for appointment of Receiver, in which sri C. Pratap Reddy, Advocate was appointed as Receiver. He took possession of the plaint a and B Schedule properties and auctioned the leasehold right. Her husband, her sister- in-law and mother-in-law divided the joint family properties and sold the properties allotted to their shares to third parties and gave a power of attorney to Janab Yahayali of Madanapalli authorizing him to sell the properties. The properties allotted to the share of her husband only are made the subject matter of plaint-A schedule and the properties purchased by her husband under an agreement of sale are shown in plaint-B schedule. Though this Court, in the C. M. A. preferred against the order appointing a receiver, gave a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit before the end of 1999, her husband without getting ready for trial of the suit, was changing his counsel frequently. Petitioners came on record as defendants in 2000. After closure of the evidence on behalf of plaintiffs, her husband filed an application seeking leave to amend the written statement, which was partly allowed. Since her mother- in-law chose to remain ex parte and did not come into witness box, the case was posted for arguments. Her counsel submitted written arguments. Her husband and his sisters and mother changed six lawyers and took time for several years. The evidence of third defendant was recorded by a commissioner. After the Commissioner filed his report, another petition was filed to reissue the warrant of commission to reexamine her. That petition was allowed and she was recalled for further examination before the commissioner. Since the High Court gave a direction to dispose of the case within a particular time, the matter was posted for arguments and her counsel addressed arguments in the trial Court, and in the meanwhile, the petitioners changed their lawyer and filed another petition to send exs. A-1 and A-21 to an expert. Since a division Benchhas filed the time for disposal of the case, and since a learned Single Judge has given more time than the time given by the Division Bench, the trial Court took up examination of the witnesses. A-1 and A-21 to an expert. Since a division Benchhas filed the time for disposal of the case, and since a learned Single Judge has given more time than the time given by the Division Bench, the trial Court took up examination of the witnesses. The contention of the petitioners that the trial court took up trial of the case without caring for the orders of the stay granted by this Court is not correct. Petitioners who are very powerful persons are threatening her that after the case is transferred to a different Court she would be murdered. If the case is transferred to a different Court it would not be safe for her. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) THE point for consideration in whether there are grounds to transfer the case? Order dated 10-10-2002of the Division Bench reads:"now it is reported by both sides, evidence of both the parties in the case is over. Arguments are also over. Now the matter is reserved for judgment. Under these circumstances, we direct the learned Additional District Judge, madanapalle, to dispose of the suit in o. S. No. 16 of 1998 preferably within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the interim stay dated 11-04-2002 granted by this Court to continue. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. "obviously after the above order, the case must have been reopened by the trial court in as much as the fact that on 20-12-2002 the learned trial Judge appointed a commissioner to record the evidence of fifth respondent is not denied or disputed by the next friend of respondents 1 and 2 in her counter affidavit. The fact remains that by 20-12-2002 the interim stay granted in c. M. P. No. 20774 of 2002 inc. R. P. No. 5005 of 2002 was very much in force. The prayer in cm. P. NO. 20774 of 2002 is:"grant stay of all further proceedings in o. S. No. 16 of 1998 on the file of Additional district Judge, Madanapalle pending disposal of CR. P. No. 5005 of 2002. "the stay initially granted for three weeks from 01-ll-2002was extended for four weeks from21-ll-2002, and was extended till further orderson27-12-2002 by learned single Judge. P. NO. 20774 of 2002 is:"grant stay of all further proceedings in o. S. No. 16 of 1998 on the file of Additional district Judge, Madanapalle pending disposal of CR. P. No. 5005 of 2002. "the stay initially granted for three weeks from 01-ll-2002was extended for four weeks from21-ll-2002, and was extended till further orderson27-12-2002 by learned single Judge. When the order staying, all further proceedings in the suit passed by this Court was in force, the trial Court taking up the trial of the suit and passing orders in the interlocutory proceedings filed therein, would, to say the least, amount to contempt of Court. No doubt a Division Bench of this court, directed the trial Court to deliver judgment within three weeks. But that order does not clothe the trial Court with a power to disregard the subsequent order of stay granted by a learned single Judge of this court. The trial Court should not have ignored the order of stay passed by the learned single judge, merely on the basis of the earlier order of the Division Bench. If the trial Court entertained a doubt, it ought to have addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial), informing him about the direction given by the Division Bench and the subsequent order of stay granted by the learned single Judge, and should have sought appropriate directions or instructions from this Court. Obviously the trial Court failed to keep in view that an order passed by a single Judge is also an order passed by the High Court, and is as much binding on it as the earlier order of the Division Bench. The trial Court should have known that as a matter of convenience cases would be listed before a division Bench or a single Judge as per the directions of the Hon ble the Chief Justice. In the remarks the learned trial Judge did not state the reasons for ignoring the order of stay passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, it is obvious that the learned trial judge is under an impression that the order of any stay granted by the learned single judge can be ignored because of the earlier direction given by a Division Bench. Law of precedent that a Division Bench decisionhas to be followed in preference to a decision of a single Judge cannot be imported into order of stay granted by this Court. Law of precedent that a Division Bench decisionhas to be followed in preference to a decision of a single Judge cannot be imported into order of stay granted by this Court. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Judge taking up the proceedings in spite of the orders of stay would naturally cause apprehensions in the minds of affected parties, and so the petitioners are justified in feeling that they may not get justice before the Court in which the proceedings are pending. ( 10 ) THE bald allegations made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents that the life of the next friend of the minor plaintiffs would be in danger if the case is transferred to some other Court cannot be believed or accepted, ( 11 ) THE fact that C. R. P. No. 5005 of 2002 was dismissed with a liberty to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, does not take away the effect of the stay that was granted earlier. It is well known that proceedings taken in the Court during the operation of stay should be treated to be as null and void. Therefore, all the proceedings taken by the trial Court subsequent to the issuance of order of stay in C. M. P. No. 20774 of 2002 in C. R. P. No. 5005 of 2002 are hereby set aside and O. S. No. 16 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, mandanapalle is withdrawn from that Court and is transferred to the Court of III additional District Judge, Tirupathi for disposal according to law from the stage at which it was prior to the receipt of the order of stay in C. M. P. No. 20774 of 2002 in C. R. P. No. 5005 of 2002. The learned III Additional district Judge, Tirupathi shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before the end of July 2004. The petition is ordered accordingly.