Mere Apprehension Cannot Justify Transfer of Execution Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh HC Rejects Allegations of Bias Against Judicial Officer

“Transfer Must Be Based on Legally Sustainable Grounds, Not Conjectures” – The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Manepalli Mohan Rao v. Kotipalli Sita Maha Lakshmi & Ors. dismissed two transfer petitions filed under Section 24 CPC, refusing to interfere in execution proceedings that were underway before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsapur. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legally sustainable reason for seeking the transfer and emphasized that “a mere apprehension that justice will not be done does not suffice.”

“There cannot be any dispute over the proposition that the Court which passed the decree is entitled to execute the decree… Mere apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises,” the Court observed while dismissing the petitions.

The petitioner had sought transfer of two execution petitions (E.P. No.2/2024 and E.P. No.3/2024 arising from O.S. No.91/2017 and O.S. No.93/2017 respectively) from Narsapur to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The core of his claim was that the same property—subject matter of a specific performance suit he had filed earlier—was being fraudulently dealt with by the respondents under the guise of recovery suits using collusive promissory notes.

The petitioner alleged that two suits—O.S. No.3/2014 and O.S. No.4/2014—were fraudulently filed by third parties in collusion with the defendants of his pending suit, and that the subsequent decrees obtained therein were being executed to frustrate his rightful claim. He further contended that the current execution proceedings were aimed at creating third-party interests in the same schedule property.

He also invoked administrative bias, claiming he had filed a complaint against the presiding officer of the Narsapur Court and hence feared injustice. However, the Court rejected this line of argument, noting that the concerned Judicial Officer had already been transferred on 07.04.2025.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, the High Court reiterated: “A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done… However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice.”

Further invoking Captain Amrinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal, the Court stressed: “The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension.”

In the present case, the High Court concluded that no such credible or reasonable apprehension had been established by the petitioner.

The Bench also clarified that the property involved in the execution proceedings lies within the territorial limits of Narsapur, and the petitioner had himself approached the same executing court earlier by filing claim petitions in the relevant E.Ps.

“Moreover, the petitioner has not sought transfer of the suits to the X Additional District Court at Narsapur, where his own suit is pending… The law is well settled that necessity or occasion to transfer a suit would arise, if only, there exists similarity of cause of action or commonality of parties. Such situation does not arise in the present case,” the Court held.

Finding no valid ground for transfer, the High Court ruled: “For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that there are no grounds to allow the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions.”

Date of Decision: April 9, 2025