IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3239 of 2011(O) ---------------------- OP(TRANSFER) 3/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD ............... PETITIONER : -------------------- KUNJIPPA S/O ABOOBACKER, AGED 71 YEARS, ECHARATH VALAPPIL, NJANGATTIRI, TRITHALA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT : ---------------------- GOPI MOHAN, S/O KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, KOILAYIL, CHEMBRA DESOM, THIRUVEGAPURA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679304. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP(C).No. 3239 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO. 149/2008 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED IN O.S. NO. 203/2006 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM DT. 31-8-2010. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF OP (TRANSFER) NO. 3/2011 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF COUTNER/OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OP TRANSFER NO. 3/2011 OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER PASSED IN OP (TRANSFER) 3/2011 DATED 6-8-2011 BY THE DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3239 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S. No.149 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Ottappalam sought a decree for recovery of money from the respondent. He had filed O.S. No.203 of 2006 in the same court against the wife of brother of respondent for recovery of money. Learned Sub Judge dismissed that suit as per Ext.P2, judgment and according to the petitioner, made some observations in paragraph 10 of Ext.P2, judgment. In view of that observations petitioner filed O.P(tr.) No.3 of 2011 before the learned District Judge, Palakkad requesting to transfer the case to any other sub court in the District. That application was dismissed by the learned District Judge for the reason that observations allegedly made in the judgment of which petitioner is apprehensive are either not reproduced in the petition or copy of the judgment is not produced. The order of the learned District Judge is under challenge. Learned counsel contends that in Ext.P2, judgment (in O.S. No.203 of 2006) paragraph 8 contains an observation which might influence the learned Sub Judge in deciding O.S. No.149 of O.P(C) No.3239 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2008 and in the circumstances it was appropriate to transfer the case to some other sub court in the District. 2. I have been taken through Ext.P2, judgment in which case the brother of the respondent was examined as D.W.1 and evidence of petitioner as P.W.1 and the said D.W.1 is discussed in paragraph 10. Leaned Sub Judge referred to the statements made by the petitioner as P.W.1 in the box that he has filed O.S. No.149 of 2008 against the respondent (brother of D.W.1). Referring to the evidence discussed in paragraph 10 it is observed that “these facts probabilised the case of defendant” (in O.S. No.203 of 2006). 3. It is pointed out by learned counsel that petitioner had filed yet another suit against one Vasudevan, another brother of respondent for recovery of money and that suit was decreed by another Sub Judge of the same court. The observation that the learned Sub Judge has made in paragraph 10 of Ext.P2, judgment must be confined to the decision in O.S. No.203 of 2006 and as I understand, that observation was made in the light of the evidence recorded in that case. Whatever observation learned Sub Judge has made in paragraph 10 of Ext.P2, judgment cannot and should not influence the decision in O.S. No.149 of 2008 which should be based on the evidence recorded in that case. I O.P(C) No.3239 of 2011 -: 3 :- must also bear in mind that if O.S. No.203 of 2006 is dismissed as pointed out by learned counsel, another suit filed by petitioner against another brother of respondent ended in a decree in favour of the petitioner. Therefore the observations made in paragraph 10 of Ext.P2, judgment need not be a reason for transfer of the case. 4. Learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of O.S. No.149 of 2008 on the merit of the case and untrammelled by any observations contained in Ext.P2, judgment. With the above direction this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv