IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 77 of 2008() -------------------- TPOP.98/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. ABRAHAM THOMAS, AGED 80 YEARS, SON OF ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT PALAKUNNAM ESTATE, VALAKKAYAM, CHIRAKKADAVU P.O.-686520, (VIA) KANJIRAPPALLY, CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ALEX GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF ABRAHAM GEORGE, RESIDING AT PALAKUNNAM ESTATE, VALAKKAYAM, CHIRAKKADAVU P.O.-686520, (VIA) KANJIRAPPALLY, CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ G. VASUDEVAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUNNATHANAM HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., PIN-686518, PANACHAPPALLY KARA,KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 228/08 IN CRP 77/08 DISMISSED 25.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 77 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the District Judge, Kottayam in T.P (O.P) 98/07 whereby the learned District Judge declined to transfer OS 115/06 pending before the Subordinate Judge’s court to this court. The grounds made for transfer was that while dismissing the adjournment application and also while allowing the application for restoration, the court made some comments about the medical certificate produced by the 1st plaintiff. The party apprehends that the Judge is biased and therefore prayed for transfer. 2. Learned District Judge has considered the matter elaborately and had also pointed out the necessity to have the discipline of the court to be maintained. Just because a judicial officer makes some comments about the document, which was produced before him, it would not show that he is prejudiced. The proceedings itself would show that the same court had restored the application and suit, which shows its judicial attitude in the matter. I do not want to elaborate this case any further. Since there are no sufficient grounds to interfere, this civil revision petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps