IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 262 of 2009() ------------------------- OS.330/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... (S): PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------- M.P.KAMALA BAI, D/O.KITTUNNI, AGED 78 YEARS, MAHIJA NIVAS, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE NOW RESIDING AT `VASUDHA', CIVIL STATION P.O., THULICHERRY, KANNUR-670 002. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT --------------------------------- JOSEPH THOMAS, ADVOCATE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, `MAHIJA NIVAS', CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R1 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).Nos.262 AND 263 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER These two petitions are filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is common in both the petitions. She is the defendant in O.S No.294 of 2007 pending on the file of 1st Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode which is instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for a decree of specific performance on an agreement of sale. She is also the plaintiff in O.S No. 330 of 2008 pending on the file of the 3rd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode wherein she has sought for setting aside two documents, a mortgage deed and also an agreement of sale which are alleged to have been collected from her by the respondent/defendant in the suit by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. Respondent is stated to be a practicing advocate in the courts of Kozhikode. Petitioner is stated to be an old lady aged 78 years permanently settled at Kannur. She seeks Tr.P.(C).Nos.262 AND 263 OF 2009 Page numbers transfer of both the suits to the Sub Court, Kannur canvassing a case that she may not get justice if the cases are tried at Kozhikode since the respondent is a practicing advocate at that place. Her inconveniences and difficulties in appearing before the courts at Kozhikode for prosecuting/defending the suit are also canvassed for the transfer requested for. 2. Notice given, the respondent has entered appearance. The request for transfer is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contending that the presence of the petitioner for trial of the suits at the most may be required hardly for one or two days and the plea canvassed that in view of her old age she has to undergo a lot of difficulties to attend the court at Kozhikode hardly merits any consideration. Similarly, the other ground canvassed that since the respondent is a practicing advocate in the courts at Kozhikode, petitioner will not get justice, cannot be accepted Tr.P.(C).Nos.262 AND 263 OF 2009 Page numbers as a tenable and sustainable ground for transfer, according to the counsel. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find, the fundamental principle in dispensation of justice is that justice should not only be done but appear to be done. Petitioner, an aged lady, it seems, has an apprehension that she will not get justice if the cases are tried in the courts at Kozhikode since the respondent is a practicing advocate in the courts at that place. May be her apprehension is baseless and unfounded, but, still when such an apprehension is raised, it cannot be brushed aside for the reason that she is unable to produce any material to substantiate that ground canvassed for. The age of the petitioner and also the apprehension canvassed by her that being a practicing advocate the respondent will have more access to the courts perhaps not of influencing the presiding officer but in getting things done for Tr.P.(C).Nos.262 AND 263 OF 2009 Page numbers prosecution of the cases, I find it is better and appropriate to transfer both the cases to a court outside Kozhikode district. In the given facts of the case, I direct for transfer of both the cases, O.S No.294/2007 of 1st Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode and O.S No. 330/2008 of 3rd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode to the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery. The 1st Additional Sub Judge and also 3rd Additional Sub Judge shall transmit the records of the respective cases to the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery without delay. Parties are directed to appear before the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery on 06/01/2010. Subject to the above observations, the petition is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv