IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2033 of 2008(P) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN (TRANSFER) IN OP.781/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OP.710/1999 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.P.STANLEY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.PAPPU, KOLAPPILLIL HOUSE, POWER HOUSE EXTENSION ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUKAPPILLY JUNCTION, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-26. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- K.P.JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PAPPU, KOLAPPILLIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 43/1436, POWER OF EXTENSION ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 2033 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking to transfer O.P.710/99 on the file of the I Addl. Sub Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner filed an application for transfer before the District Judge as O.P.280/07 and it was dismissed. It is against that the present writ petition is filed. At the out set I may like to state that this Court had at least three opportunities to deal with this case on different occasions. The case has been hanging on file before the Court below for a considerable number of days and every time some accusation is made against the Presiding Officer and now the accusation is that she is biased and she is not properly heeding to the request of the writ petitioner and every time the party has to come to the High Court for redressal of the grievance. On very many occasions in spite of even direction given by this Court there was delaying tactics. When a Commissioner was appointed by this Court for the purpose of examination fixing W.P.C 2033 OF 2008 -:2:- the date from the open Court, cross-examination was not done on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner did not give specific notice. So the attitude of the writ petitioner is very clear and as observed by the learned District Judge, Interest of justice does not need a transfer in this case. I hold and wish that the writ petitioner stops filing petitions after petitions but co-operate with the Court for disposal of the case. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-