IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 72 of 2009() ------------------------------ OS.227/1992 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER : ---------------- MANEERI RUGMINI, D/O.MANEERI NANU, BHAGAVATHIKALATHIL HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM (PO), MONGAM (VIA), ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN, MANEERI HOUSE, KALIKAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ANIL BABU, S/O. LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN, MANEERI HOUSE, KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SUNIL RAJ, S/O.LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN, MANEERI HOUSE, KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SREEKALA, D/O.LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN, (W/O.ADV.K.P.VIJAYARAJAN), MANEERI HOUSE, KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SURESH, S/O.LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN, MANEERI HOUSE, KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. Tr.P(C).No. 72 of 2009 6. CHANDRAMATHI.M., D/O.MANEERI NANU, W/O.K.P.ACHUTHAN, Q.NO.G 9/19, NEAR SARDAR PATEL SCHOOL, SOUTH T.T.NAGAR, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH-462 003. 7. SAROJINI.M, D/O.MANEERI NANU, W/O.BHARATHAN, MOOPIL HOUSE, MANGATTIRI P.O., TIRUR-5, MALAPPURAM. 8. SUKUMARAN @ BALAN, S/O.ARAPPIL KRISHNANKUTTY, ARAPPIL HOUSE, TIRUR TALUK, TALAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. VISHALAKSHI.M, D/O.MANEERI NANU, W/O.VAZHAYIL JANARDHANAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 TO 5 SRI.O.V.USMAN KURIKKAL FOR R1 TO 5 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C).No. 72 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A.NO.625 OF 2009 IN TR.P(C).No.72 OF 2009 DISMISSED 30.03.2009 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.72 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 O R D E R The plaintiff in O.S.No.227/1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri seeks transfer of the suit to any of the Sub Courts at Kozhikode. 2. The reasons stated for transfer are the following : i) The daughter of the petitioner is a practicing lawyer in Manjeri courts. ii) The husband of the fourth respondent is also a practicing lawyer in Manjeri courts. He is very influential. iii) It will be embarrassing for the plaintiff and her daughter if the case is tried before the Sub court, Manjeri. iv) An application for removal of the case from the ready list was filed since the physical condition of the petitioner did not permit her to be examined in court. That application was dismissed. Thereafter, she filed an application Tr.P.(C) No.72 of 2009 2 to examine her on commission. That application was allowed. At the time of hearing of the application, various observations were made by the learned Judge which caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that she may not get justice, if the suit is tried in that court. The attitude of the learned Judge was against the petitioner and she reasonably believes that the learned Judge is prejudiced against her. 3. The transfer petition is seriously opposed by respondents 1 to 5. The counsel for respondents 1 to 5 pointed out that the suit was filed in 1992. Written statement was filed in 1993. Issues were settled in 1995 and on five occasions, the plaint was amended. It is also pointed out that as per the order in I.A.No.181/2009, the plaintiff was allowed to be examined on commission. A commissioner was appointed. The examination of the petitioner/plaintiff was fixed to be held on 08.03.2009. The plaintiff filed the chief affidavit on 19.02.2009. All the lawyers appearing in the case were ready Tr.P.(C) No.72 of 2009 3 for examination of the plaintiff. However, stating that the plaintiff was laid up, adjournment was sought for and that request was allowed. The Transfer Petition was filed in this background. 4. There is no case that the daughter of the petitioner or the husband of the fourth respondent started practice recently in Manjeri courts. They started practice several years ago. The reason stated that the daughter of the petitioner and the husband of the fourth defendant are Advocates practising in Manjeri courts is as such not a reason for a transfer of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge do not find any embarrassment in taking up the case for trial and no request was made by the learned Sub Judge for transfer of the case. Therefore on that ground, I do not think that the request for transfer can be entertained. The allegation that the learned Sub Judge made various observations which caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that she may not get justice from that court is not substantiated. The statement made by the petitioner is disputed by the respondents. No specific incident has been pointed out. The allegations are Tr.P.(C) No.72 of 2009 4 vague and general. On the basis of an allegation for allegation sake, a case cannot be transferred. To my mind, the reasons stated by the petitioner for transfer of the case are not sufficient for allowing the application for transfer. The Transfer Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be afforded a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence. The court below shall consider the same and grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. At the same time, this opportunity should not be allowed to be taken advantage of by the plaintiff to protract the case instituted in the year 1992. With the above observations, the Transfer Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE pac