1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Tr.CMP(MD)Nos.131 & 132 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2011 Prince Devadason .. Petitioner Vs. Salome Devadasaon .. Respondent Petitions filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code praying to withdraw I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2007 and I.D.O.P.No.42 of 2007 from the file of Principal District Judge, Tuticorin and transfer the same to the file of any other District Court. For petitioner : Mr.J.Anandhavalli For respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram O R D E R These petitions have been filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, praying to withdraw and transfer I.D.O.P.Nos.8 and 42 of 2007 from the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin, to the file of any other District Court. 2. It is stated in the petitions that the respondent in Tr.CMP.No.131 of 2011 as petitioner has filed I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Court below praying to dissolve the marriage held in between her and the respondent and likewise, the respondent therein as petitioner, has filed I.D.O.P.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the Court below for restitution of conjugal rights. Further, it is stated in the petition that both the petitions have been clubbed together and a common evidence has been recorded in I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2007. In I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2007, the petitioner therein has been examined as P.W.1. At the time of cross examining her, the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin has observed that in matrimonial matters, no necessity for documentary evidence, oral evidence itself is sufficient. Since the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, has observed as aforesaid, he is having bias in his mind and virtually he has acted against the interest of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, these petitions have been filed so as to get the relief sought for therein. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions has repeatedly contended that in I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2007, the petitioner therein has been examined as P.W.1. During the course of cross examination, the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 himself made a statement to the effect that “in matrimonial matters no necessity for documentary evidence, oral evidence itself is sufficient.” Under the said circumstances, the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, is having bias against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is having genuine apprehension in his mind. Under the said circumstances, the present petitions have been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, has not at all made any statement as stated in the petition and even if such statement is made, that itself is not sufficient, so as to grant the relief sought for in these petitions and therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. Since a specific allegation has been made against the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, he has been directed to submit his remarks and accordingly, he submitted his remarks, wherein it is stated like thus:- “When the cross examination was being recorded at the 8th page of the cross the learend counsel for the respondent insisted for an answer from P.W.1 whether she had got any documentary evidence for the proof of payment of dowry eventhough the witness already answered as “mth; tujl;riz Bfl;L vd; mg;ghthy; bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ vd;gjw;F vd; tha;bkhHp rhl;rpjhd; Mjhuk;.” At this juncture as participating Presiding Office of the Court requested the counsel to proceed with his next question because the witness has already answered and any fact can be proved either by oral or and by documentary evidence. He has also proceeded with his next question. In this regard I respectfully submit that the Court did not make any observation as 'in matrimonial matters no necessity for documentary evidence, oral evidence itself is sufficient.” 6. From the close reading of the remarks submitted by the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, it is made clear that he candidly denied the statement alleged to have been made by him during the course of cross examination of P.W.1, the petitioner in I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2007. Even if he made such kind of statement, that would not affect the interest of either party. The reason is that he is bound to pass orders only on the basis of both oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side. Therefore, it is needless to say that the allegation made against the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, is nothing but trivial in nature and the same is not at all sufficient to say that the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, is having bias against the petitioner and therefore, the entire contention put forth on the side of the petitioner cannot be accepted and altogether, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In fine, these petitions deserve dismissed and accordingly are dismissed without costs. The Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, is strictly directed to record further evidence without making unnecessary comments and also directed to dispose of both the I.D.O.P.Nos.8 and 42 of 2011 before the end of September 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. 2. The Section Officer, Judicial Department, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate (SR.No.24344) Tr.CMP(MD)Nos.131 & 132 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2011 22.07.2011 rj2 NSV/2.8.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/