IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 405 of 2011(K) ------------------------ OP(TR.) 535/2009 AND 536/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ KUTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KUTHUPARAMBA P.O., THALASSERY TALUK BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.C.ROASAMMA,D/O.CHERIYAN KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM,AMBILAD DESOM P.O.NIRMALAGIRI,THALASSERY TALUK PIN 670 701. 2. KUTHUPARAMBA MUNCIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KUTHUPARAMBA P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, PIN 670643 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.405 of 2011 O ----------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd August, 2010 in O.P.(Tr.) Nos.535 of 2009 and 536 of 2009 on the file of the court of the District Judge of Thalassery. The petitioner is one of the defendants in O.S.No.132 of 2000 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Kuthuparamba. The petitioner and another filed O.S.No.187 of 2006 on the file of the same court against the respondents. Both the suits are pending. The court below ordered joint trial of both the suits. The suits are ready for trial. At that juncture, the petitioner filed the applications for transfer. The court below dismissed those applications. The reason for transfer is that Advocate V.P.G.Nambiar, a senior member of Kuthuparamba Bar, is to be examined as a witness in the suits. According to the petitioner, a compromise in an earlier suit between the parties was entered into when Advocate V.P.G.Nambiar was the O.P.(C) No.405/2011 2 President of the petitioner Educational Society. According to the petitioner, if the Advocate is to be examined in the court in which he is still practicing, it would cause embarrassment to the parties. 2. The court below held that the reasons stated for transfer is not sufficient to allow the request for transfer. The Advocate, who is to be examined as a witness, has not expressed any embarrassment and he did not approach the court for transfer. Likewise, the court also does not feel any embarrassment in conducting the trial of the case in which the Advocate is to be examined as a witness. The reasons stated by the court below for dismissing the Transfer Petitions are legal and proper. No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl