IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20249 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OP(TP).283/2008 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.746/2006 of I ADDL.M.C., TRIVANDRUM ................................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRABHAKUMARY, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.JAYAPRAKASH, JEEVA NIVAS, CHENKOTTU KONAM, THUNDATIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SATHYAVATHY S., W/O.ANILKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, THERIYIL VEEDU, S.P.XIV/314, UDAYAGIRI, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.20249 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the entire records relating to passing of Ext.P4 order by the Hon'ble District Court, Thiruvananthapuram and set aside Ext.P4 order. ii. to stay all further proceedings in Ext.P2 pending before the Ist Addl.Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram and iii. to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.155/2008 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale and the respondent is the defendant. The respondent has filed another suit as O.S.No.746/2006 against the petitioner for recovery of possession before the Ist Additional Munsiff Court, WPC.20249/09 2 Thiruvnanathapuram. The subject matter involved in both the suits are the same, ten cents of property belonging to the respondent. Whereas, the petitioner has a case that under an agreement of sale and payment of Rs.2,45,000/-, she was put in possession of the property in part performance of an agreement of sale, respondent contends that to discharge financial liability to several persons, she was compelled to enter into an agreement to avail a loan from the petitioner and there was no intention to convey the property, but a document was executed to evidence a security for the loan availed. Though she was prepared to pay back the money availed as loan, it is the case of the respondent, there was refusal by petitioner to close the transaction and also to vacate from the building in the property, which was permitted since she could not pay the interest on the loan availed as agreed upon. In such circumstances, the respondent filed the suit O.S.No.746/2006 before the Ist Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, for recovery of possession from the petitioner. After filing the suit, O.S.No.155/2008 for specific performance of the agreement of sale, petitioner moved a WPC.20249/09 3 transfer petition for transferring O.S.No.746/2006 from the Ist Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Ist Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where O.S.No.155/2008 filed by the respondent was pending, before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned District Judge, after hearing both sides dismissed that application. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Correctness and propriety of Ext.P4 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P4 order and the materials tendered in the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties in both the suits and the subject matter are the same and the questions arising for adjudication are identical, and so much so, a joint trial of the two suits by transferring the suit WPC.20249/09 4 pending before the Ist Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Ist Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where the other suit is pending is necessary to advance the ends of justice. Reversing Ext.P4 order of the learned District Judge, it is submitted, the transfer as prayed for by the petitioner may be granted. Perusing Ext.P4 order, I find the learned District Judge was fully justified in disallowing the request made for transfer of the cases as desired by the petitioner. It is seen, the suit filed by the respondent came up in the list thrice and on all those occasions, the present petitioner remained absent with the result of setting her ex parte. On all those occasions showing indulgence, ex parte decree was set aside. It is also seen the present transfer petition was filed months before but pressed into service only much later when the case filed by the respondent came up in the special list for trial. It is also noticed that the suit filed by the respondent was instituted three years ago and the petitioner has filed her suit the last year. Evidently, the attempt of the petitioner as found by the learned District Judge seems to be to prolong the litigation on WPC.20249/09 5 once pretext or another. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the transfer petition. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp