IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3262 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [O.P(TP).NO.236/2011 OF DISTRICT COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OS.NO.198/2008 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- AJITH KUMAR, SREENILAYAM, VELIYANNOOR P.O, VELLANDU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA). RESPONDENT: ---------------------- MRS.BAETA ELIZABETH KOELLAN SCHARFEN BERG, D/O. HANS KOELLEN, KKSTATTSRIA 30469, MUNCHEN,GERMANY, AND NOW RESIDING AT 'KARTHIKA' MELEKADAVILMOODU, MUTTAKKADU, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.3262/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN F.A.O.NO.2/2011 DTD. 08/06/2011. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE O.P.(T.P).NO.236/2011 DTD. 20/07/11. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/08/11 IN O.P.(T.P).NO.236/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3262 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.198 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Nedumangad. That is a suit for money filed by the respondent, stated to be a German. Petitioner filed written statement and the case was posted for trial in the list on 07.12.2009. Since respondent was not very much conversant with English, an interpreter was appointed. When the case came up in the list, petitioner sought time to get assistance from the interpreter. Evidence was recorded and the case was posted on 08.12.2009. That day, petitioner represented before learned Sub Judge that he is filing a petition for transfer. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding that, petitioner was recorded absent, was set exparte and the case was taken up for judgment. In the meantime, petitioner filed transfer petition before the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The exparte order against petitioner was sought to be set aside but refused by the learned Sub Judge. That order was challenged in F.A.O. No.2 of 2011 and this Court allowed the appeal on 08.06.2011. Petitioner is apprehensive about getting justice from the court below and hence the request for transfer which the learned District Judge did not permit also for the reason that there is a direction from this Court in the judgment in F.A.O.No.2 of 2011 to the learned Sub Judge to dispose of the suit before 31.10.2011. Learned counsel has made a fervent plea to transfer the case to any other Sub Court in the District. OP(C)No.3262/2011 2 2. Having heard learned counsel and gone through the records I am unable to accept the request. Merely because petitioner states that he is apprehensive about getting justice, a case cannot be transferred in accordance with his wish. I must bear in mind the stigma that is likely to be caused on the Judge when on such allegations an order of transfer is made by this Court. Such orders are to be passed only in such cases where the court is satisfied that a strong case possibility of the party not getting justice is made out and if the case is not transferred, it will occasion a failure of justice. I am not satisfied that any such situation exists in this case. As such I do not find reason to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge. I am sure that learned Sub Judge will take appropriate decision in the case on merit based on the evidence and the law on the point. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks