Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1529 (AP)

Isunuru Sarveswara Rao v. Isunuru Venkat Tata Rao

2004-12-21

D.S.R.VERMA

body2004
D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the petitioner representing himself. Perused the material placed before me. ( 2 ) PETITIONER filed the present petition seeking transfer of the suit in OS No. 310 of 1993 from the file of the Court of Additional senior Civil Judge, Guntur, to any of the courts in the twin cities of Hyderabad and secunderabad or to any of the Courts in rangareddy District. ( 3 ) AN affidavit has been filed giving out innumerable grounds seeking transfer, which need not be reiterated in the present order. ( 4 ) THE petitioner himself states that he sent representations to the Hon ble The president of India, the Hon ble The Prime minister of India, the Hon ble The Chief justice of India and the Hon ble the Chief justice of this Court, giving out the same reasons as are stated in the present petition, for transfer. ( 5 ) AT the outset, I do not find any reason for the petitioners to make such representations to the other constitutional functionaries seeking transfer of the said case, when the same can be sought by way of filing an application under Section 24 cpc, either before the District Judge, Guntur or before this Court. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, from the record, it would be seen that this Court called for a report from the District Judge, Guntur and also explanations from the two Senior civil Judges against whom averments have been made. Conseqeuntly, the district Judge, Guntur, and the other two officers have submitted their respective explanations. ( 7 ) FROM a mere perusal of the said explanations and the reasons set out therein, I am of the considered view that the present petition seeking transfer does not deserve any merit, since these averments were found to be baseless. ( 8 ) THE further averment of the petitioner is that the defendants in the suit, filed by him, for partition, are very influential and they have been influencing the Judicial Officers where the suit is pending for the past more than eight years. He reiterates the same stand in all the representations/applications made, not only to the constitutional functionaries but also before this Court. ( 9 ) FURTHER, from the submissions made by the petitioner himself, it appears, he keeps on making uncharitable remarks against all the Judicial Officers in all these years. He reiterates the same stand in all the representations/applications made, not only to the constitutional functionaries but also before this Court. ( 9 ) FURTHER, from the submissions made by the petitioner himself, it appears, he keeps on making uncharitable remarks against all the Judicial Officers in all these years. From a perusal of the report of the district Judge, Guntur, and the explanations submitted by the other two Judicial Officers, it would be seen that the petitioner was given more than sufficient time by granting adjournments from time to time, on various grounds. One of such grounds for adjournment was pendency of SLP before the Apex Court in connection with some other issue. Petitioner submits that the slp was dismissed by the Hon ble Apex court. He further submits that a review petition had been filed and the same was also dismissed. The context and nexus between the averments made in the said slp and the review petition on one hand and the averments made in the present petition as well as the representations made to the other constitutional functionaries is totally indiscernible. ( 10 ) OBVIOUSLY, the petitioner appears to have no faith either in the Judicial system or in the legal profession except in himself. I could make this comment because when i asked the petitioner to engage an advocate to represent him, with all audacity at his command, he stated that he had no faith in the Advocates and he had faced problems through advocates. This blanket statement against the legal profession and the judicial system may not be the only ground to dismiss this transfer petition, but when considered the other aspects and ther grounds for transfer, the petitioner s lack of faith in the judicial system and on the legal profession would only add a little to the conduct of the petitioner, but does not certainly alter the situation. ( 11 ) FROM a perusal of the record of this Court, 1 am of the considered view that the petitioner is in the habit of initiating vexatious litigation apart from making ill- founded remarks against the Judicial officers. The conduct of the petitioner all through has to be deprecated by all means. That apart, the petitioner, being a well educated person, does not know the four corners of the institutions particularly the judiciary where he has been ventilating his grievance. The conduct of the petitioner all through has to be deprecated by all means. That apart, the petitioner, being a well educated person, does not know the four corners of the institutions particularly the judiciary where he has been ventilating his grievance. He seldom tried to realise his limitations and obligations towards various systems and functionaries in the society and incessantly transgressing the same. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, i do not find any merit in the transfer application and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.