IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 52 of 2009 OPTP.270/2008 of DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.941/2005 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM (OS 305/05 & 229/95) PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS; -------------------- 1. K.V.SARADA WILSON, W/O.LATE DAVID WILSON AGED 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C.2/3240,KULANGARA LANE, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N.CROMPTON, S/O.NELSON, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NELLINILAYAM, T.C.4/2168,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SANTHOSH WILSON, S/O.LATE DAVID WILSON, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C 2/3240, KULANGARA LANE, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER SRI.K.T.BOSCO RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. T.K.SATHYA BABU, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C.14/313, ARUVEES VEEDU, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OSCAR LEWIS, S/O.VARKEY LEWIS, AGED 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT ROSHAN BUNGLOW, T.C.NO.14/32, EXTRA POLICE ROAD, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Tr.P.(C) NO. 52 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th February, 2009 O R D E R Three suits, namely, O.S.Nos.941 of 1995, 229 of 2007 and 305 of 2005, as between the parties, are pending disposal before the I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the order in W.P.(C) No.24287 of 2008, this Court directed the learned Subordinate Judge to include the three suits in the special list for trial and to dispose of the suits within a time frame. 2. Learned Subordinate Judge addressed a letter dated 27.9.2008 to the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram pointing out that it would be better if the three cases are transferred to some other court of competent jurisdiction. In the letter, the learned Subordinate Judge has pointed out certain incidents. The learned Judge also thought that one of the parties is not very keen in disposing of the cases expeditiously, while the other party really wants an early disposal of the cases. It is also pointed out that the attitude of the lawyers appearing in the cases was also not helpful. As per the order dated 31.10.2008 in W.P.(C) No.24287 of 2008, this Court felt that it is not necessary to take any action on the basis of the letter addressed by the learned Subordinate Judge to the learned District Tr.P.(C) NO.52 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Judge. It was held that it is for the learned District Judge to decide whether the suits should be transferred on the basis of the request made by the learned Subordinate Judge. Later, writ petitioners filed O.P.(T.P.) No.270 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for transfer of the three suits to some other Court. Learned District Judge considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in great detail and held that it is not necessary to transfer the suits to some other Court. Learned District Judge held thus: "The learned I Addl. Sub Judge is directed to proceed with the trial without any fear of questioning his integrity by any of the parties and dispose of the case as directed by the Hon'ble High Court without any fear and in accordance with law. The parties as well as the advocates are also directed to co-operate with the learned I Addl. Sub Judge to dispose of the case at the earliest possible time without making any unnecessary comments about the attitude of the Judge in proceeding the case so as to cause any unnecessary feelings for the learned Sub Judge." 3. The petitioners challenge in this Writ Petition, the order passed by the learned District Judge in O.P.(TP) No.270 of 2008. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the evidence on the side of the writ petitioners is over and the evidence of the first respondent is almost over. It is submitted by him that the first respondent was cross examined on four Tr.P.(C) NO.52 OF 2009 :: 3 :: days. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this itself is the problem highlighted by him and that the learned Subordinate Judge is not devoting that much time necessary for examination of the witnesses. I do not propose to pronounce upon the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties. It is fairly clear that the cases are at the final stage of trial. There was a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge to dispose of the cases within a time frame. Learned District Judge thought that it is not feasible to transfer the cases at this stage. There is no personal bias alleged by any of the parties against the learned Subordinate Judge. It is only just and proper that the cases are heard and disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge. There is no need for transfer of the cases. It would not be beneficial to any of the parties, if the cases are transferred to any other Court. On the other hand, it would be detrimental to the interests of both parties, who very vehemently submitted that all of them are interested in getting the cases disposed of at the earliest. In the facts and circumstances as detailed above, I do not think that any interference is called for. The Transfer Petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/