IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 89 of 2010() ------------------------ AS.54/2007 of 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (SPL. COURT NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ----------------------------- JOHN, S/O. SKARIA, AGED 88 YEARS,ELLICKATHARAPPEL HOUSE, PALAKKUZHA KARA, KOOTHATHIKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.M.JASMIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SAVITHRI, W/O. GOPI, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE, ADIMALIKKARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 2. P.K. MATHAI, S/O. KURUVILA, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, KROORKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.C.No.89 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 09th day of June, 2010 ORDER This petition is for transfer of A.S.No.54 of 2007 from the court of learned Additional District Judge (Special Court for NDPS Cases), Thodupuzha to any other competent court in the district. The reason stated is that there happened to be some difference of opinion between learned counsel who was appearing for petitioner (appellant in the appeal) and the learned Judge while hearing the appeal which resulted in learned counsel relinquishing his engagement for petitioner and another counsel appearing for him to argue the appeal. It is stated that without giving sufficient time for the counsel for appellant to address arguments the case was taken up for judgment and posted to 30-03-2010 treating it as heard. 2. Notice to respondent No.2 is returned with the endorsement that respondent No.2 has expired. Respondent No.1 has not responded in spite of service of notice. 3. On going through the petition I do not find valid reason to order transfer of the case. Apprehension to enable a transfer must be real and substantial. Having regard to the circumstances Tr.(P).C.No.89 of 2010 : 2 : stated, I do not consider it necessary to order transfer of case. What is required is to direct the learned Additional District Judge to give sufficient time for counsel on both sides to address arguments in the appeal (if it is not already disposed of). Resultantly the petition is disposed of directing learned Additional District Judge (Special Court for NDPS Cases) to give sufficient time to the counsel on both sides for arguments in the appeal (A.S.No.54 of 2007) before it is taken up for judgment (if the appeal is not already disposed of). (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-