IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23611 of 2010(O) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANILKUMAR P.S/O.PACHAN, AGED 34 YEARS MELATHI VEEDU, KAMUKINCODE, KODUNGUVILA PO, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VIJAYA KUMARI.K, D/O.THANKAMMA, CHOWARS POTTA VEEDU, KARODU PO, UCHAKKADA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KGST, LIC, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23611 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P3 order passed by the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on 19.7.2010 in O.P.(TP) No.20/2010. Vide the impugned order O.S.No.54/2008 has been withdrawn from the court of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara and made over to the court of learned Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. That is a suit filed by the petitioner, an advocate practicing at Neyyattinkara and Thiruvananthapurm Bar for recovery of insurance money said to have been illegally paid by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. The suit was filed in the year 2008. By the time the suit was to be tried in the list, respondent No.1 filed petition for transfer before learned District Judge urging his apprehension if the case is tried in the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Respondent No.1 stated that since Advocates of Neyyattinkara Bar were not inclined to accept his brief as petitioner was an active member of that Bar, he had to engage a counsel from Thiruvananthapuram Bar to conduct the case. It is W.P.(C) No.23611/2010 2 also stated that some time, petitioner appeared in the case (as party in person) wearing professional robes which was resisted by counsel for respondent No.1. But that was not taken care of by the learned Sub Judge. There are certain other allegations also made in the petition for transfer. Of course, those allegations are denied by the petitioner. He claimed that allegations are made only to suite transfer of the case to Thiruvananthapuram. It is also stated that suit was instituted in the year 2008 and until 2010 when the case was about to be listed for trial. Respondent No.1 had no such grievance or apprehension. But, it is stated by respondent No.1 in the petition that counsel engaged by him from Thiruvananthapuram Bar expressed his inability to conduct the case at Neyyattinkara. Having regard to all these aspects learned District Judge held that respondent No.1 has a genuine apprehension regarding a fair trial at Neyyattinkara and that justified a transfer. Learned District Judge after consideration of the relevant materials and the decisions on the point held that interest of justice required the case to be transferred to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. I am not persuaded to think that the W.P.(C) No.23611/2010 3 transfer in any way prejudiced petitioner in that, even as per his version he is attending the courts at Thiruvananthapuram also. Thiruvananthapuram is not so far away a place from Neyyattinkara so that, petitioner would find it difficult to attend the court at Thiruvananthapuram. Learned District Judge has on the facts and circumstances of the case come to the conclusion that justice required the case to be transferred to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. I find no reason why petitioner should feel aggrieved. I do not also find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Writ Petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) ps