ORDER : P.SAM KOSHY, J. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent No1., i.e., the High Court for the State of Telangana, and against respondent No.2-Judicial Officer (who during the relevant period had worked as XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad), praying the Court for the following relief/s, viz., “1. to direct respondent No.1 to produce and file the entire record pertaining to the complaint dated 19.02.2021; 2. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the High Court for the State of Telangana to consider the complaint of corruption dated 19.02.2021 lodged by the petitioner herein against respondent No.2 (Judicial Officer) and to conduct an enquiry into the said complaint as per law; and consequently, to impose maximum punishment upon respondent No.2.” 2. In addition to the aforesaid substantive relief, the petitioner had also prayed for that which is reflected in paragraph No.26 of the affidavit, which the petitioner had subsequently also claimed by way of an I.A. which has not been numbered but was still at the S.R. stage. The relief so sought is extracted hereunder, viz., “If the Hon’ble Court is inclined to disagree with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. K. Manjusree vs. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P., rep. by its Registrar (Vigilance), Hyderabad and another , [ 2019 (1) A.L.T. 496 (D.B.)] , then in such an event, the instant case will have to be referred to a Larger Bench as per the ratio of judgment reported in Jaisri Sahu vs. Rajdewan Dubey , [A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 83] .” 3. Heard Mr.Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.M. Sudershan, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana, for respondent No.1. 4. Pending writ petition, the sole petitioner had died. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the petitioner herein have filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.8773 of 2021 praying the Court to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner herein. Vide Order dated 17.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.8773 of 2021, the legal representatives of the petitioner were brought on record. 5. Vide Order dated 17.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.8773 of 2021, the legal representatives of the petitioner were brought on record. 5. The whole grievance of the petitioner seems to be that which is reflected in the alleged complaint dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-1). The alleged grievance seems to be flowing from the proceedings that have been drawn in a Civil Suit, viz., O.S.No.952 of 2014 pending on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Court, 1908 seeking for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule property along with co-sharers, i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 7 therein. The petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is defendant No.2 in the above suit who had expired. The petitioner herein is now being prosecuted by his legal heirs in the present Writ Petition and also in the above suit, who have been brought on record (referred above). 6. The respondent No.2 herein, i.e., the Judicial Officer, who was seized of the above suit, was posted as XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad during the period 14.11.2019 up till 30.04.2022. Thereafter, she had been transferred to different stations. 7. The suit, viz., O.S.No.952 of 2024, was instituted at least five years before respondent No.2 was posted at Hyderabad as the XXV Additional Chief Judge. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had been subsequently transferred from that post after a brief stay of just about 2 ½ years. Meanwhile, the above suit had not been substantially progressed except for decisions on a couple of I.A.s. 8. Meanwhile, pending suit, the petitioner herein has filed two I.A.s, viz., I.A.No.117 of 2021 in O.S.No.952 of 2014 on 02.02.2021 and I.A.No.166 of 2021 in O.S.No.952 of 2014 on 05.02.2021. 9. I.A.No.117 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w Rule 60 & Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court for issuance of witness summons to the District Registrar, Hyderabad for producing the registers mentioned as under, viz., “1. The Original Register, i.e., Book No.1 on which the Sale Deed dated 10.07.1974 bearing Document No.2409 of 1974 is handwritten; 2. The Original Register, i.e., Book No.1 on which the Sale Deed dated 10.07.1974 bearing Document No.2409 of 1974 is handwritten; 2. The Original Thumb Impression Register pertaining to the Sale Deed dated 10.07.1974 bearing Document No.2409 of 1974; 3. The Original Register, i.e., Book No.1, Volume No.616, Page Nos.385 to 386 on which the document dated 02.08.1978 (Document No.3057/1978) is handwritten; and 4. The Original Thumb Impression Register pertaining to the Sale Deed dated 02.08.1978 bearing Document No.3057/1978.” 10. I.A.No.166 of 2021 in I.A.No.457 of 2020 in O.S.No.952 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 10-A r/w Rule 60 R/o. Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to send the Original Sale Deed dated 02.08.1978 bearing Document No.3057/1978 to the High Security Printing Press, Nasik for determining the date of issue of the Non-Judicial stamp paper on which the said document is engrossed. 11. It may not be lost sight of the fact that the suit is primarily a suit for partition seeking for separate possession of the petitioner’s share in the suit schedule property. It appears that in the midst of the aforesaid two I.A.’s being pending, the presiding Judge proceeded to decide I.A.No.234 of 2018 and I.A.No.475 of 2018. It is these two I.A.’s which stood decided vide order dated 03.03.2021 which is under challenge in the aforesaid two appeals, viz., Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.542 and 543 of 2022. 12. However, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 25.02.2021 which means that the grievance of the petitioner seems to have arisen from conducting of the proceedings in O.S.No.952 of 2014 in between 14.11.2019 to 26.02.2021, i.e., in just around 15 months which is a little over from the time the respondent No.2 assumed charge as the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Another fact which needs to be realized is that barely after four months from the time respondent No.2 had assumed charge as the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the country went into lockdown for a considerable period of time and the Courts were closed for initially some time and thereafter the proceedings were conducted virtually again for a very long time. 13. 13. So far as the grievance of the petitioner against respondent No.2 is concerned, the said grievance seems to be primarily an allegation as to the officer being suspected of being corrupted and thus, the proceedings drawn is an outcome of the biased mind that the petitioner has against respondent No.2 and others. There does not seem to be any complaint or grievance so far as the other defendants in the suit are concerned. Also, there does not seem to be any complaint against any of the judicial officers who had earlier presided over the Bench hearing the said suit, or against any of the subsequent judicial officers who were seized of the matter. In between, there seems to be injunction applications filed by the petitioner (defendant No.2 in the suit) before the Trial Court which stood rejected vide order dated 03.03.2021, and against which there are two appeals filed by the petitioner herein challenging the said order, i.e., Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.542 of 2022 and 543 of 2022, both of which are still pending considering before this Court. The sole grievance of the petitioner seems to be non-deciding of the above two I.A.’s, viz., I.A.No.117 of 2021 in O.S.No.952 of 2014 and I.A.No.166 of 2021 in O.S.No.952 of 2014 by the Trial Court. 14. In the pleadings of the instant Writ Petition, there is no direct averment of any allegation of corruption leveled against the respondent No.2, except for mentioning that the petitioner suspecting bona-fides of the Presiding Officer, i.e., the respondent No.2 in conducting of the proceedings, as would be evident from the contents of paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the Writ Petition. The further grievance of the petitioner also seems to be the alleged non-adherence to the principles laid down by the High Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the applications which the petitioner had filed (referred supra). Both these grounds do not give rise to a prima facie strong case to convince this Bench to even apprehend that the respondent No.2 in the course of deciding the injunction petition, to have been influenced by any of the parties. The reason to reach to the said conclusion is for the primary reason that it was COVID lockdown period for the majority of the period during which the said O.S.No.952 of 2014 was taken up for hearing by the 2 nd respondent. The reason to reach to the said conclusion is for the primary reason that it was COVID lockdown period for the majority of the period during which the said O.S.No.952 of 2014 was taken up for hearing by the 2 nd respondent. The second reason for reaching to the aforesaid conclusion is that, except for a decision in one or two I.A.s, there does not seem to be any substantial progress that took place during the tenure of the respondent No.2 (Judicial Officer) when she was seized of the above referred suit. Moreover, no substantial relief has also been granted in favour of any of the parties in any of the orders passed by the respondent No.2. The third reason is that the order dated 03.03.2021 that which has been passed by the respondent No.2 has already been subjected to challenge in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.542 of 2022 and 543 of 2022. 15. As regards the other prayer that the petitioner has made, i.e., to refer the matter to the Larger Bench in the event if this Court is not agreeing for the said relief sought for in the writ petition by relying upon a decision of this High Court in Smt. K. Manjusree (supra) . It is the view of this Bench that issue which the petitioner had tried to raise in the instant writ petition is neither identical nor similar to the facts in the impugned order which is decided by relying on the decision of this High Court in Smt. K. Manjusree (supra) . Moreover, the issue decided in Smt. K. Manjusree (supra) is in no manner relevant to the facts of the present case so also even to apply the analogy laid down in the said decision, i.e., Smt. K. Manjusree (supra) . Therefore, the said prayer of the petitioner is unsustainable and thus cannot be acceded to. 16. So far as the other decisions which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also quite distinguishable on its facts itself, as those have all been decided in an entirely different contextual background than the contextual background of the instant case. 17. 16. So far as the other decisions which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also quite distinguishable on its facts itself, as those have all been decided in an entirely different contextual background than the contextual background of the instant case. 17. As regards the complaint dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) which the petitioner has sent to the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad making certain allegations against the respondent No.2 (Judicial Officer) is concerned, the said complaint, if it is still pending, the same shall be taken into consideration on the administrative side whereby the Registrar (Vigilance) shall ensure that the said complaint is scrutinized on its merits and an appropriate decision be taken thereon in accordance with the practice and procedure laid down by the High Court on complaints received against Judicial Officers by the Registrar (Vigilance). The said direction is only in the event if the complaint dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) is still pending. However, if the complaint dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) has already been scrutinized and decided nothing further remains to be done on the same. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Bench is of the considered opinion that no strong case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of relief/s as sought for by the petitioner in the instant writ petition in the given factual backdrop of the case for exercising the extraordinary Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition being devoid of any merit fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.