IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 Tr.P(C).No.255 of 2008 --------------------------- OS.411/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER --------------- BEENY @ BENNIT J. PALLAM, S/O. JOSEPH, PALLATHU HOUSE, ODAKKACITY.P.O, KOOMBANPARA KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. ABY J. PALLAM, S/O. JOSEPH, PALLATHU HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. P.J. VARGHESE, S/O. JOSEPH, PALLATHU HOUSE, ODAKKACITY.P.O, KOOMBANPARA KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE. 3. JOY JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, PATTATHU HOUSE, PAREEKANNY KARA, PAIMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. ELDHO P. JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, PALLATHU HOUSE, PAREEKANNY KARA, PAIMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. PONNAMMA, W/O. KURIAKOSE, THOONAPPUMMOLEL, KOZHIPPILLY.P.O, VAREPETTY. 6. MILKAMMA, W/O. ALIYAS, KOORAN HOUSE, MEYEKKADU.P.O, CHERIYAVAPPALASSERY ANGAMALY. Tr. Petition (C) No.255 of 2008 -2- 7. SALY, W/O. THAMPI, KANJIRAVELIL HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM.P.O, IYEKKARNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU. 8. LALY, W/O. ELDHOSE, COCHENGAMANADAN HOUSE, ADIMALI.P.O, ERUNNOORAKKARA, AADIMALY. 9. JESMY, W/O. JOSE, THAZHETHE ULLINALM KUTHUKUZHI.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. 10. BAIJU, W/O. BABU, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, OORAMAN.P.O, RAMAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Tr. Petition (C) No.255 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 ORDER Counter has been filed by the first respondent. Heard. 2. This transfer petition has been filed for transfer of O.S.411/08 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha to any other Munsiff's Court in Ernakulam. The said suit is submitted to be a suit for partition instituted by the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 15/09/08 when he appeared through counsel and prayed for time for filing written statement, the learned Munsiff posted the case for written statement, for framing of issues and for evidence to 15/10/08 and that the undue haste shown by the Munsiff gives him an impression that he will not get justice from that court. Extract of the order sheet is not Tr. Petition (C) No.255 of 2008 -2- produced to establish the correctness of the statement so made. There is no chance of a case which is being adjourned for filing of written statement being posted also for framing of issues and for evidence on the same day. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no posting on 15/09/08; that the case stood posted to 17/09/08 for return of summons; that on that day the petitioner entered appearance through counsel and prayed for time for filing written statement; that the case was adjourned to 15/10/2008 for filing written statement and to 17/10/08 for settlement of issues. I see no reason for the petitioner to entertain any apprehension when the case is posted to a specific date for filing written statement and to a subsequent date for settlement of issues. The petitioner has also alleged that earlier O.S.46/07 which was pending before the same court was Tr. Petition (C) No.255 of 2008 -3- transferred from that court to the Munsiff Magistrate's Court, Kolencherry as per Annexure-A1 order. Annexure-A1 order shows that the reason for transfer of that case was that the Presiding Officer has presided over the Adalath and an advocate who assisted him was later appointed as Commissioner to inspect the property and it was to avoid unnecessary apprehension for the petitioner regarding the impartiality of the Presiding Officer that the case was transferred vide Annexure-A1 order. There is no reason to think that any Presiding Officer is having any animosity towards the petitioner and the petitioner has no case that he has reasons to suspect that the Presiding Officer of Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha will be prejudiced against him. It is also worthy to remember in this context that the suit is one for partition instituted by the first respondent. The request for transfer is devoid Tr. Petition (C) No.255 of 2008 -4- of any merit. 3. In the result, I dismiss this Transfer petition. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-