IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27348 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OP(TP).130/2010 of DISTRICT COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OS.131/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED SADIQUE,AGED 58, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED,VANKADA VILA,MANTHARA DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAJITH,S/O.MOHAMMED SYED ADIYAN, VILAKATHU VEEDU,MANTHARA DESOM,EDAVA VILLAGE. 2. ALSHAD,AGED 28 ,S/O.FASILUDHEEN, SREEYATTEE DHARMA VEEDU,EDAVA VILLAGE. 3. SHAMSUDEEN,AGED 64,S/O.PAKKEER MUHAMMED, KHADEEJA MANSION,VENKULAM DESOM,EDAVA VILLAGE. 4. SAFEEYULLA,AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HAKKIM,SABEERA MANZIL,KATTUVILA, PARAYIL DESOM,EDAVA VILLAGE. 5. THAHIR,S/O.AHAMMED KANNU,AMINA MANZIL, KURAKKANNI DESOM,VARAKALA VILLAGE. 6. ABDUL MANAF,S/O.ABDUL HAKKIM,PADINJARA THEKKEVILA VEEDU,ODAYAM DESOM,VARKALA VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27348 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Dismissal of O.P.(T.P.) No.130 of 2010 by the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.131 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Varkala filed that petition for transfer of the case to some other court. Grievance of petitioner is that learned Munsiff interfered in the course of cross examination of the witnesses of respondents/plaintiffs and the argument. Petitioner feels apprehensive in that conduct of the learned Munsiff. Petitioner therefore wanted a transfer of the case. Learned District Judge after hearing the objection of respondents held that there is no reason to think that petitioner has any genuine apprehension requiring transfer of the case and consequently dismissed the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that apprehension of petitioner is genuine and has to be looked into. It is stated that it is not sufficient that justice is done, but it must be done seemingly as well. 2. It is seen from the observations made by the learned District Judge that parties examined their witnesses and proved their documents which was spread over several days. Later, case was posted for hearing on 14.06.2010. Then it was represented on behalf of petitioner that hearing note is being filed . The case was posted on 17.06.2010, 18.06.2010 and on 19.06.2010. When it WP(C) No.27348/2010 2 was noticed that hearing note has not been filed learned Munsiff heard counsel on both sides. Learned District Judge has observed in the impugned order that learned counsel for petitioner argued the case before the learned Munsiff for more than one hour . The case was then taken up for judgment. In the meantime on account of some dispute regarding survey number respondents filed application to reopen the case and to adduce evidence. (I am told that petitioner also has filed an application to receive additional documents). The case stood posted for judgment on 02.09.2010 and now (as the learned counsel submits) it is posted on 06.09.2010. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the order of learned District Judge. I am not persuaded to think that there is any genuine reason for petitioner to feel apprehensive about a fair trial and decision in the case. In that situation learned District Judge is justified in refusing to order transfer of the case. I do not find reason to interfere. Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks