IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8217 of 2008(C) ------------------------- OS.58/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KERALA PERMANENT BENEFIT FUND LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT NSS UNION BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, ALUVA - 683 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SMT.V.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. NABEESA SALIM, W/O.T.M.SALIM, RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, NEAR SOUGHT RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, ALUVA. 2. P.G.MADHAVAN NAIR, SIVASMRITHY, MADATHILAKATHOOTTU, ULIYANNOOR, KADUNGALLUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008 ALONG WITH WPC Nos. 8222 & 8240 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). Nos. 8217, 8222 & 8240 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT These writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam, in refusing to transfer OS 58/05 in WP(C) No. 8217/08, OS 142/05 in WP(C) No. 8222/08 & OS 57/05 in WP(C) No. 8240/08 pending before Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, North Paravur to any other Subordinate Judge's Court for trial and disposal. 2. A perusal of the order passed by the learned District Judge would reveal that the reason averred by the petitioner for transfer in these petitions is that in a similar suit filed by the plaintiff the learned subordinate Judge passed a decree whereby the rate of interest is fixed at 6% per annum and with cost. According to the petitioner, the learned Judge is likely to pass similar decrees in the present cases also. Learned District judge held that it is not a ground and therefore dismissed those applications. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an order passed by me in WPC 28657/07 wherein I made an observation that in order to avoid embarrassment to the MACT, I feel that the case may be transferred to the 1st Addl. District Court, Kozhikode. Those observations were made under the special circumstances in that case and it was not at the instance of the party but on WPC Nos.8217, 8222 & 8240 OF 2008 2 account of the various allegations and embarrassment that may be caused to the system. Time and again the courts have held that a view taken in one matter shall not be a ground for transferring the other case with very same subject matter unless, there are other reasons. Just because a presiding officer has granted only 6% interest or disallowed cost, it shall not be the rule that it will be the finding in the other case. In each case the awarding of interest and ordering of costs depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial discretion is expected to be exercised soundly and not arbitrarily. I remind the Subordinate Judge, where the matter is pending, to take into consideration these broad principles while proceeding with the matter. It has also to be said that justice is not only to be done but it should be seem to be done as well. Therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge. The writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. I do so with the observation that the court where the matter is pending has to consider each case independently and award interest and cost judiciously as contemplated by law and dispose it of in accordance with law. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC Nos.8217, 8222 & 8240 OF 2008 3 WPC Nos.8217, 8222 & 8240 OF 2008 4 WPC Nos.8217, 8222 & 8240 OF 2008 5