IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33101 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OP.117/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ABDUL RAZAK,AGED 40,S/O.ABDULLA, KOLAKKATTU HOUSE,MANANTHAVADY.P.O,VEMOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY AMSOM,MANANTHAVADY TALUK.REP;BY HIS P/A.HOLDER T.K.KUNHAMMED,56,AYISHA MANZIL, ERUMATHERUVU,MANANTHAVADY.PO,VEMOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY AMSOM,MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 2. T.K.KUNHAMMED,AGED 56,AYISHA MANZIL, ERUMATHERUVU,MANANTHAVADY.PO,VEMOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY.PO,VEMOM DESOM,MANANTHAVAY AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.R.DHANAVAN,AGED 52,S/O.RAJAPPAN, PARAMBATHERIL HOUSE,MANANTHAVADY.PO,VEMOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY AMSOM,MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 2. SUJA DHANAVAN,AGED 50,W/O.DHANAVAN, PARAMBATHERIL HOUSE,MANANTHAVADY.PO,VEMOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY AMSOM,MANANTHAVADY TALUK. ADV. SRI.N.HARIDAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.N.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING WP(C).No. 33101 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S 100/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANANTHAVADY.P.O EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 20.07.2009 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 23.08.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S 100/2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANANTHAVADY.P.O EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER O.P. DATED 21.8.2009 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.8.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN O.P NO.117/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2009 IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.350/2009 AND 351/2009 IN O.P (T) 117/2009. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1 (a): TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN PAGE NO.4 OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 9.8.2009 /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.33101 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to have Ext.P6 order passed by the District Judge, Kalpetta quashed, transferring O.S 100/2009 from the file of the Munsiff Court, Mananthavady to the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. 2. The petitioners before this Court were the defendants in O.S 100/2009 before the Munsiff Court, Mananthavady. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. A copy of the suit is produced as Ext.P1. Defendants entered appearance in the suit. The petitioners filed a detailed written statement in the suit. A copy of the written statement is produced as Ext.P3. 3. It seems that thereafter the petitioners moved the District Court, Kalpetta as per O.P. No.117/2009 seeking a transfer of the case from Munsiff Court W.P (C) No.33101 of 2009 2 Mananthavady to any other Munsiff Court in Kalpetta. According to them, the defendants have formed a joint action council to oppose them and they apprehend that they may not be able to get a fair trial in the suit at Mananthavady. It is also alleged that one of the members of the Court was related to a member of the said action council. They apprehend that if information is passed on, it would affect this case. For a fair and just trial, they pray for a transfer of the case to Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. 4. It is seen that the respondents opposed the petition. However, the District Court, Kalpetta, prima facie was convinced that there was some substance in the petition and accordingly passed the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that there was no justification for the court to order the transfer of the case to the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. According to the counsel, the allegations are vague and without any basis. He should have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence and to cross examine the case. It is also stated that the transfer caused considerable W.P (C) No.33101 of 2009 3 inconvenience to the petitioners herein. 6. I cannot agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that they may not get a fair trial before the Munsiff's Court, Mananthavady. The respondents have moved the court below alleging that there was reasonable apprehension that they may not be able to get a fair trial for the reasons stated by them in their petition. Prima facie, the District Court, Kalpetta was convinced that there was some substance in the petition. So it is not necessary for this Court to go deep into the matters. It is said that justice must not only be done but must appear to have been done also. There is nothing to show that jurisdiction has been exercised erroneously, improperly and illegally. So, I find no reason to interfere with the said decision because prima facie the court below felt that there is some justification to transfer the case. The writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.33101 of 2009 4 W.P (C) No.33101 of 2009 5