IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37805 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------------- OS.175/1994 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM OPTP.250/2007 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: VASANTHA SENAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, T.C.47/22, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, POONTHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: 1. G.SOMAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, PAZHAVAR VEETTIL, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, POONTHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, PAZHAVAR VEETTIL, DO. DO. 3. N.SREEKUMAR @ MURUGAN,S/O.NARAYANAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, TC 47/1265, DO. DO. 4. ANILACHANDRAN @ MADHU, S/O.PRABHAVANENDAN, VALIYAVILAKOM PUTHEN VEEDU, TC 47/113, NEAR DEVI TEMPLE, DO. DO. 5. HARILA CHANDRAN @ CHANDRAN, DO. DO. 6. KARTHIKEYAN @ AJAYAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, T.C.47/1830, MANIKKANVILAKOM WARD, DO. DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37805 of 2008 A -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 175/94 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, filed O.P.(TP)No.250/07 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram for transfer of the said suit to some other court on the ground that S.C.No.224/94 registered against the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, is also pending before the same court; that the claim in the suit is for damages for the injuries sustained to him in the occurrence involved in Crime No.24/91 of Poonthura Police Station, which, after investigation, has been charge sheeted and committed to the Court of Session and it is that case that is numbered as S.C.No.224/94. 2. The apprehension of the petitioner/plaintiff is that if the Judge, who is trying the sessions case, is to try the civil suit as well, the judgment that may be delivered in S.C.No.224/94, WPC 37805/08 2 wherein, trial has already started, may affect the result of the civil suit as well. 3. It has to be borne in mind that nature of appreciation of evidence in a criminal case and in a civil case is different and the judicial officer will certainly be aware as to how he has to make an approach while deciding a civil case as different from the approach that has to be made in appreciating the evidence in a criminal case. According to the counsel for the petitioner, if the respondents are acquitted in S.C.No.224/94, that will cause prejudice in the mind of the officer against the petitioner. However, S.C.No.224/94 is not yet disposed of, it is submitted. It may also happen that the said sessions case may end in conviction. If so, in the event of the apprehension of the petitioner being upheld, there will be chance of decision in O.S.No.175/94 being available in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff as well. In my view, there is absolutely no merit in WPC 37805/08 3 entertaining such apprehensions, as no court will be interested in the result of a civil suit or a criminal case and the Judge will be disposing of the cases on the basis of the evidence that may be available before it. The District Judge has, vide Exhibit P1 order, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for transfer and that has only to be confirmed and this writ petition dismissed. In the result, I dismiss this writ petition. 19th December, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv