IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4627 of 2009(A) TOP.356/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.485/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR PETITIONER: BHASKARAN, (RETIRED TEACHER), AGED 70, S/O.ARUMUKHAN, "ASWATHY", MUNDOOR DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: 1. JOICE ANTONY @ JAISON, S/O.PELLISSERY ANTHONY, AMMADAM DESOM, PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. ANANTHAKRISHNAN @ ANANDAN, S/O.EDATHEDATH MADHAVAN, VALLISSERY DESOM, AVINISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. JIJEESH, S/O.PANAPARAMBIL VELAYUDHAN, KODANNUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. PRASANNAN, S/O.THADATHIL VASU, VENGINISSERY DESOM, PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. SHAJI, S/O.MADAMBIPARAMBIL VASUDEVAN, AVINISSERY VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 6. MANOJ, S/O.NADUVALAPPIL RAMANANDHAN, KODANNUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 7. PREMADAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT ASWATHI, PAZHAMUKKU DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 8. LEELA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT ASWATHI, -DO- 9. SHALI, W/O.PREMADAS, RESIDING AT ASWATHI, PAZHAMUKKU DESOM, -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 4627 OF 2009 A ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed T.O.P.No.356 of 2008, on the file of the District Court, Thrissur, seeking transfer of O.S.No.2867 of 2006, Munsiff's Court, Thrissur and O.S.No.485 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur to the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur for joint trial along with P.O.P.Nos.14 of 2007 and 56 of 2007. The court below dismissed the application, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. O.S.No.2867 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner and respondents 7 to 9 alleging that respondents 1 to 6 had forcibly taken certain signed cheque leaves, blank papers and stamp papers from the petitioner and misused them. The prayer in the suit is to get back those signed cheque leaves, blank papers and stamp papers. It is stated that there is also a prayer for declaration that any document created on the basis of the aforesaid documents are not binding on the plaintiffs. O.S.No.485 of 2006 was filed by the fourth respondent against the petitioner for realisation of money based on cheque. According to the petitioner, this cheque is one of the cheques which was obtained by force from him as alleged in O.S.No.2867 of 2006. P.O.P.Nos. 14 of 2007 and W.P.(C) NO.4627 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 56 of 2007 are applications filed by respondents 5 and 6 to allow them to institute the suits as indigent persons. It is submitted that they have claimed money on the basis of the cheques which were taken from the petitioner. Even before the court below considered the Transfer Petitions, O.S.No.485 of 2006 was dismissed by the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The court below held that the suits relate to different transactions and it is not proper to have a joint trial and, therefore, the prayer for transfer of the cases cannot be allowed. The court below also noticed that in the nature of the pendency involved in the courts at Thrissur, it will take at least five years for converting the POPs into Original Suits. Therefore, it was thought that it was not feasible to transfer O.S.Nos.485 of 2006 and 2867 of 2006 for being tried along with the pauper applications. Now that O.S.No.485 of 2006 is disposed of in favour of the petitioner, what remains is O.S.No.2867 of 2006 and two applications filed by respondents 5 and 6 for allowing them to file suits as indigent persons. The court below held that O.S.No.2867 of 2006 has become infructuous. I am of the view that this finding of the court is unnecessary. In the nature of the dispute involved in the case, such a finding was premature. Therefore, I vacate that finding. At the same time, the conclusion arrived at by the court below that there is no ground for transferring the suit to the I Additional Sub Court, Thrissur is correct. I do not think that there is any ground for setting aside the order passed by the learned District Judge. W.P.(C) NO.4627 OF 2009 :: 3 :: The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as follows: a) The conclusion arrived at by the court below that the transfer sought for cannot be allowed, is confirmed. b) The finding rendered by the court below that O.S.No.2867 of 2006 has become infructuous is vacated as it was unnecessary for considering the question of the request for transfer. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/