ORDER The petitioner filed O.S.No.2 of 2006 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet against the respondents for the relief of rendition of accounts carried on by the partnership firm for the period between 26-11-1995 and December, 2004. He has also filed O.S.No.3 of 2006 in the same Court for rendition of accounts for the period from 15-11-1999 to the end of December, 2004 in respect of a firm, by name Vijaya Real Estate. The trial of the suits commenced and the recording of evidence on the side of the petitioner was concluded. The trial Court started recording the evidence of the defendants. 2. The petitioner filed these two Tr.C.M.Ps. with a prayer to transfer the suits to another Court. According to him, the atmosphere in the trial Court is not congenial. This statement is made on the basis that the learned District Judge did not permit the petitioner to cross-examine D.W.1 and though certain inadmissible and irrelevant documents were filed by D.W.3, they were permitted, by overruling the objections raised in that regard. 3. Apart from the petitioner, an Advocate, by name Sri S. Radha Krishna Murthy has also filed two affidavits stating inter alia that the Court did not entertain certain objections and certain comments were also made humiliating the Advocates. 4. This Court called for a report from the learned Presiding Officer. After the matter was heard at some length, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to call for the record and submit a report, as to the various allegations, particularly, as to the occurrence in the Court, after recording the statements of the three Advocates. The report has since been submitted. 5. Heard Sri K.Narasimha Chary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Nageswar Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In the recent past, instances, wherein the parties are trying to dictate terms to the Courts, are increasing. The proceedings in a Court are guided by the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules of Practice. Many a time, the trial Court is required to express its opinion on several aspects, before the proceedings reach finality. By their very nature, the orders passed, or observations made during the course of the proceedings may not be to the expectation or acceptance of both the parties. An aggrieved party can always agitate his grievance in an appeal or revision. 7. By their very nature, the orders passed, or observations made during the course of the proceedings may not be to the expectation or acceptance of both the parties. An aggrieved party can always agitate his grievance in an appeal or revision. 7. The basis on which the petitioner herein seeks transfer of the suits is rather frivolous and untenable. This Court has three sets of material before it, as regards the grounds that are pleaded for transferring the suits. The first is the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The second, is an affidavit and additional affidavit filed by Sri S.Radha Krishna Murthy, Advocate, Kodad. The third is the statements of the three Advocates, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner; that have been recorded by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 8. A perusal or comparison of these three materials discloses that there is absolutely no coherence. The petitioner had filed an affidavit running into several pages, and he made certain baseless and unwarranted observations and allegations. For instance, in para 14, he stated as under: "At that time, my counsel wanted to cross-examine wetness on those aspects, the learned Judge did not allow my counsel to cross-examine D.W.1 regarding the appointment of arbitrators, commencement of the proceedings, non-existence of the agreement for arbitration, participation by respective parties to the proceedings etc. The atmosphere in the Court at that stage was not congenial from the beginning and more so from 05-01-2009, and my counsel was humiliated from asking certain questions in the cross-examination by making comments to the effect that the Learned Presiding Officer may either accept the contents of the chief examination and may not accept the contents of the chief examination but under no circumstances my counsel would be permitted to cross-examine the witness in respect of the facts alleged to have been made in the chief examination. At that stage, my counsel persuaded the Learned Judge that it is incumbent on my counsel to elicit certain facts regarding the pleadings in the plaint, written statement and the rejoinder and the contents made in the affidavit are contrary to the said allegations made therein. The Learned Judge, for the reasons best known to him did not allow any counsel to proceed with the cross-examination on these aspects. The Learned Judge, for the reasons best known to him did not allow any counsel to proceed with the cross-examination on these aspects. As such, it amounts to not giving an opportunity to put forth my cause before the Learned Judge and I have every reasons to belief that I cannot get justice before the Learned Judge". 9. The affidavit and the additional affidavit filed by Sri S.Radha Krishna Murthy are not at all supported by record. In his affidavit, he emphatically stated that he participated in the examination of the witnesses and that certain comments were made by the learned Presiding Officer during the course of the same. The respondent asserts that the said Advocate did not participate at all. In the statement recorded by the Registrar (Judicial), he has only stated that he remembers to have participated at some stage of the suit. 10. The whole episode is in a, very bad taste. Except that the petitioner and his Advocates wanted to avoid the trial Court, nothing permissible in law has been stated, much less, substantiated. 11. Normally, even where the contentions advanced by the parties, seeking transfer of the proceadings are found to be untenable, this Court would order transfer of the proceedings, lest any doubt is left in the mind of the parties, as to the dispassionate adjudication of the matter. Over a period of time, some parties are getting encouraged to make baseless allegations, being confident that even if they are not substantiated, the High Court would certainly transfer the suit to another Court. It is felt that the curtain must be withdrawn to such practice so that the Courts are not made vulnerable to unethical practices resorted, to by the parties and in some cases, their Advocates. 12. Hence, the Tr.C.M.Ps. are dismissed. This Court is confident that the trial Court will proceed with the suits uninfluenced by any developments that have taken place so far. There shall be no order as to costs.