You are on page 1of 3

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: TIRUPATI

Tr.O.P.NO. 98 /2016

Between:G.Prabhakaran

… Petitioner.

Kamisetti Varadaiah Settigari Dharma
Satram, Tiruchanur, rep., by it’s Manager
V.Nagaraja Reddy and another

… Respondents.

And:-

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1.

The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the

same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

2.

This Respondent does not admit any of the allegations in the

affidavit except those that are specifically admitted herein. The Petitioner
is put to strict proof of the same.
3.

The allegations in para 4 of the affidavit are not true and correct.

It is false to say that at the time of the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the
Petitioner’s counsel the court has not at all allowed his counsel to ask
most relevant points and when his counsel requested the Hon’ble Court
the court bluntly refused in recording the cross-examination of his
counsel on various points and when his counsel requested the court to
record the objections, the court over ruled the request of my counsel and
particularly is having Regd. sale deed in 2010 and the attitude and
intention of the court is not recording the relevant questions put by his
counsel the Petitioner getting doubt against mind of the Hon’ble
Court and according to the Petitioner intention justice will not be done to

The Petitioner’s counsel has also cross-examined P. The Petitioner made false allegations against the Principal Junior Civil Judge with an ulterior motive for the purpose of this petition.W. .1 and P.2 freely.W.W. The allegations in para 5 of the affidavit that the attitude of the court is highly doubtful to the Petitioner are not true and correct. It is submitted that the Presiding Officer of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge Court he worked in Tirupati as Court ministerial staff and this Respondent came to know that the Preceding Officer of 1 st Additional Junior Civil Judge court. 797 /2010. Now the said suit is coming of cross- At this stage the Petitioner’s filed this transfer O.1. Tirupati has allowed the Petitioner’s counsel liberally to cross-examine the P.W. The Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. 6.W. 4.1 in the said suit in O.1 on 14-9-2015.P.No.2 and the Plaintiff’s evidence is closed.W. 1-10-2015 and 4-11-2015 at length.S. The Hon’ble Court never raised any objection and the Hon’ble Court allowed the Petitioner’s counsel to cross-examine the P.S.No. 5. The Petitioner’s Counsel has cross-examined P.the Petitioner by the Hon’ble Court. is not maintainable and it is nothing but harassing the 1 st Respondent/Plaintiff. The Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Tirupati was a close friend of the Petitioner’s counsel while he was working in Tirupati and that the Petitioner’s counsel openly stated that he will win the case by transferring the said in O. examination of D. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge. 797 /2010 to the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge Court.

That is why the Petitioner has made false allegations against the Presiding Officer of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court. Tirupati without any fault of her. it can be transferred to any other court except the 1 st Additional Junior Civil Judge Court. prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with costs. . So it is nothing abuse of process of law. 7. If at all the Hon’ble Court came to conclusion that the said suit has to be transferred.Tirupati. therefore. It is. Tirupati.