IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 355 of 2009() ------------------------- OS.477/2001 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- M/S.PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD.,A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 31,NETHAJI SUBHASH ROAD, CALCUTTA-700001,REP.BY ITS P/A HOLDER,SHRI, SANTHOSH KUMAR P.,AGED 35,S/O.LATE K.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR,NOW RESIDING AT NEELIMA, EAST KADUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------- 1. TRUELINE CORPORATION, 5/233 B, M.N.G.PUDUR ROAD, SOMAYAMPALAYAM, COMBATORE-641025 REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR JOSE.G.KURUVINAKKUNNEL. 2. JOSE G.KURUVINAKKUNNEL,PROPRIETOR, -DO- -DO- THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.3593/09 IN TR.P.(C).NO.355/09 DISMISSED. 15.12.2009 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).NO.355 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Petition for transfer is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.477 of 2001 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The trial of the case is now in progress with the evidence of the parties completed. After the closing of the evidence, petitioner/plaintiff seeks transfer of the case to some other court of competent jurisdiction for the reason that there is denial of opportunity by the court in establishing the suit claim. Conduct of the proceedings of the court in recording of the evidence is also taken serious exception by the petitioner to allege that the presiding officer is proceeding in a biased and hostile manner shutting out its evidence. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the transfer petition is supported by an affidavit filed by the TPC.355/09 2 power of attorney holder of the plaintiff supporting the grounds canvassed for transfer of the case, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and examining the case canvassed for transfer, I find at this stage of the case, after the entire evidence has been recorded and completed, the request for transfer cannot be entertained. After the evidence was closed, the plaintiff filed a petition for reopening of the evidence and then the court asked for particulars with reference to the materials on which additional evidence is sought to be let in, during the recording of the evidence earlier, some of the answers given were not properly recorded etc. are some of the answers given were not properly recorded are some of the statements made in the petition to impute bias, partisanism and unfairness of the presiding officer in the trial of the case. Time limit had been fixed by this Court in a previous writ petition for completing the trial of the suit and its disposal setting aside the ex parte decree passed earlier. That time limit had also been extended later on the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff. Evidently, that application for extension of time was filed after closing of the evidence in the TPC.355/09 3 case on 16.11.2009. Petitioner has no grievance over the trial at the time when extension of time was applied for. So much so, what transpired earlier during the trial of the case which are imputed to hold that the presiding officer is biased and partisan, prima facie, cannot be given much value or consideration. I am not satisfied with the grounds canvassed by the petitioner for transfer of the case applied for. Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp