IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23687 of 2010(O)
1. ALUNGAL BHARATHAN, S/O. KUNCHI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VETTANAM KADAVATH ABOOBACKER,
... Respondent
2. PUTHUSSERI VELAYUDHAN, S/O. KARAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :29/07/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.23687 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010.
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P6, order of learned District Judge,
Manjeri in O.P.(Transfer) No.2 of 2010 refusing to accede the request of
petitioner for transfer a case pending in the court of learned Munsiff, Tirur to
some other convenient court. Learned District Judge observed that there is no
ground to transfer the case, petition is devoid of merit and dismissed it. Learned
counsel for petitioner contends that on the facts pleaded, petitioner has a
genuine apprehension and hence learned District Judge was not correct in
dismissing the petition. According to the learned counsel, learned District Judge
has not properly considered facts leading to the request for transfer.
2. O.S.No.293 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Tirur where
petitioner is defendant No.1 is requested to be transferred. That is a suit filed by
respondent No.1 for mandatory injunction concerning certain alleged blank
cheques. Brother-in-law of petitioner had filed O.S.No.278 of 2008 in the same
court against respondent No.1. In that case, petitioner was not a party but he
was examined as a witness. Learned Munsifff initiated action against petitioner
and others under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which petitioner
challenged in this Court in W.P.(C) No.31412 of 2009. This Court allowed that
Writ Petition and the proceeding against petitioner was quashed. That incident
WP(C) No.23687/2010
2
causes apprehension in the mind of petitioner, as I could read from the
averments in the petition. Learned counsel contends that if there is some
genuine apprehension in the mind of the litigant, request for transfer could be
allowed.
3. Whatever that transpired in O.S.No.278 of 2008 has culminated in
this Court quashing the proceeding as per judgment in W.P.(C) No.31412 of
2009 and hence that proceeding cannot have any life thereafter. Moreover,
contentious issues involved in the two suits are not the same. Hence, whatever
action was initiated by the learned Munsiff in O.S.No.278 of 2008 need not have
a bearing on the decision in O.S.No.293 of 2008 particularly in view of judgment
of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31412 of 2009. Learned Munsiff with his experience
will decide O.S.No.293 of 2008 on the merit of that case. In view of that, I do not
think it necessary to order transfer of the case.
Resultantly this Writ Petition fails. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks