The Telangana High Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking transfer of a long-pending civil suit from a Medchal court, firmly holding that mere fear or suspicion of an unfair trial cannot justify shifting a case. The court made it clear that allegations against a presiding judge must be supported by concrete reasons, not conjecture.
The order was passed by Justice Renuka Yara, while hearing a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by a Medchal-based litigant.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mr. B. Narsimha Reddy, approached the Telangana High Court seeking transfer of O.S. No. 31 of 2019, a civil suit pending before the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Medchal in Medchal Malkajgiri district.
Invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner claimed that he apprehended an unfair trial if the case continued before the same court. His primary grievance was that certain municipal authorities and one of the defendants were allegedly making statements suggesting influence over the presiding judge.
Allegations Raised by the Petitioner
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that respondent authorities were leveling unnecessary allegations that the petitioner intended to grab land meant for a road leading to the District Court complex. It was further alleged that one of the defendants had publicly claimed, within the Bar Association, that he had influenced the trial judge.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
To support this claim, reliance was placed on a photograph showing the concerned defendant present at a public event where land was formally handed over for the construction of the District Court complex. The petitioner argued that this presence created a reasonable doubt about judicial neutrality.
Interestingly, the petitioner’s counsel also stated that there were “other factors” causing concern, but conceded that these could neither be placed on record nor articulated before the court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court was quick to reject the premise of the transfer request. The bench observed that apprehension alone cannot be a ground for transfer and referred to settled Supreme Court law on the issue.
“The mere apprehension of an adverse order cannot be a ground for transfer,” the court noted, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Addressing the photograph relied upon by the petitioner, the court pointed out that the land-handover event was a public gathering attended by members of the Bar, revenue officials, and court staff. The presence of a presiding officer at such an event, the bench observed, cannot raise suspicions of bias.
“It is almost impossible for presiding officers to identify parties in civil suits and avoid being photographed with them at public gatherings,” the court remarked.
The judge also highlighted that the subject matter of the civil suit involved private property and had no connection with the land allotted for the District Court complex. “Any presiding officer is unlikely to have a personal interest in such private disputes or be amenable to influence,” the order said.
On Unstated Grounds and Amendment Plea
The court firmly rejected the argument based on unspecified reasons that were neither pleaded nor argued in detail.
“Reasons which are not mentioned and whose veracity cannot be examined cannot form the basis for transfer,” the bench observed.
The petitioner’s counsel also submitted that an amendment application was pending in the suit, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. It was argued that if allowed, the case might be transferred on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds.
Rejecting this line of reasoning, the court clarified that a future transfer based on jurisdiction is entirely different from seeking transfer on allegations of unfair trial.
Read also:- PILs Against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma Over Alleged Hate Speech Reach SC, CJI Seeks Calm
Final Decision
After considering all submissions, the Telangana High Court refused to transfer the civil suit.
“In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed,” the court ordered, adding that there would be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
Case Title: Mr. B. Narsimha Reddy v. Commissioner, Thumukunta Municipality & Others
Case No.: Tr.C.M.P. No. 392 of 2025
Case Type: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition
Decision Date: 03 February 2026
