IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23687 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OP(TRANSFER) NO..2/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALUNGAL BHARATHAN, S/O. KUNCHI PARANGODAN, NIRAMARUTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 109. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VETTANAM KADAVATH ABOOBACKER, S/O. KUNCHAMMU, NIRAMARUTHUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 109. 2. PUTHUSSERI VELAYUDHAN, S/O. KARAPPAN, NIRAMARUTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.NIRAMARUTHOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 109. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23687 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P6, order of learned District Judge, Manjeri in O.P.(Transfer) No.2 of 2010 refusing to accede the request of petitioner for transfer a case pending in the court of learned Munsiff, Tirur to some other convenient court. Learned District Judge observed that there is no ground to transfer the case, petition is devoid of merit and dismissed it. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that on the facts pleaded, petitioner has a genuine apprehension and hence learned District Judge was not correct in dismissing the petition. According to the learned counsel, learned District Judge has not properly considered facts leading to the request for transfer. 2. O.S.No.293 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Tirur where petitioner is defendant No.1 is requested to be transferred. That is a suit filed by respondent No.1 for mandatory injunction concerning certain alleged blank cheques. Brother-in-law of petitioner had filed O.S.No.278 of 2008 in the same court against respondent No.1. In that case, petitioner was not a party but he was examined as a witness. Learned Munsifff initiated action against petitioner and others under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which petitioner challenged in this Court in W.P.(C) No.31412 of 2009. This Court allowed that Writ Petition and the proceeding against petitioner was quashed. That incident WP(C) No.23687/2010 2 causes apprehension in the mind of petitioner, as I could read from the averments in the petition. Learned counsel contends that if there is some genuine apprehension in the mind of the litigant, request for transfer could be allowed. 3. Whatever that transpired in O.S.No.278 of 2008 has culminated in this Court quashing the proceeding as per judgment in W.P.(C) No.31412 of 2009 and hence that proceeding cannot have any life thereafter. Moreover, contentious issues involved in the two suits are not the same. Hence, whatever action was initiated by the learned Munsiff in O.S.No.278 of 2008 need not have a bearing on the decision in O.S.No.293 of 2008 particularly in view of judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31412 of 2009. Learned Munsiff with his experience will decide O.S.No.293 of 2008 on the merit of that case. In view of that, I do not think it necessary to order transfer of the case. Resultantly this Writ Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks