BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27/03/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.52 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Sahadevan ... Petitioner Vs 1.Ayyakalai 2.P.Veeranan 3.A.Ramachandran 4.V.Valakaruppan 5.Ayyavoo 6.P.Ramasamy 7.S.Arumugam 8.The Returning Officer cum The Commissioner, Madurai East Panchayat Union, Madurai. 9.The District Election Officer cum The District Collector, Madurai. 10.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, 100 Feet Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw E.O.P.No.14 of 2006 pending on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai, and transfer the same to the file of the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai or to any other District Court of competent jurisdiction. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Mahendran for R.1 No representation for R.2 to R.10. :ORDER
This petition has been filed to withdraw E.O.P.No.14 of 2006 pending on
the file of the I Additional District Judge,, Madurai, and transfer the same to
the file of the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai or to any other District
Court of competent jurisdiction.
2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative
status before the trial Court.
3. The warp and woof of the background of this case which is absolutely
necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition could be portrayed thus:
(i) The first respondent herein who is the petitioner in E.O.P.No.14 of
2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge,, Madurai, challenged the
election of Sahadevan, the petitioner herein the President of Poikaraipatty
Village Panchayat. During enquiry, evidence was recorded by the learned
District Judge and in fact, at one point of time, evidence was closed without
examining the Election Officer. Thereupon, the petitioner filed one I.A in
E.O.P.No.14 of 2006 which was dismissed. Thereupon, C.R.P.(PD)Nos.282 and 283
of 2008 were filed and this Court vide order dated 20.02.2008, passed the
necessary orders for enabling him to examine the Election Officer and
subsequently, the Election Officer was examined before the lower Court.
(ii) It is the grievance of the petitioner herein that on 14.03.2008, even
though the learned Judge adjourned the matter to 20.04.2008 for the purpose of
pronouncing order in I.A.No.361 of 2008, yet he suo motu later served notice on
the petitioner herein that the order would be pronounced in I.A.No.361 of 2008
on 20.03.2008. After doing so, on 20.03.2008, the learned Judge made an
endorsement as follows:
“I.A.No.361/08 dispossed respondent side evidence closed. arguments also
already heard for Orders by 27.03.2008.”
(iii) The petitioner would allege that the learned Judge arbitrarily and
suo motu simply struck the endorsement made by him on 14.03.2008 and corrected
the date of hearing as 20.03.2008 instead of 20.04.2008 and furthermore, on
20.03.2008 in the endorsement extracted above, he recorded as though he heard
the arguments and posted the E.O.P for orders on 27.03.2008.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the method and manner in which
the learned District Judge conducted himself, this petition is focussed seeking
transfer on the main ground that the learned Judge already developed a biased
view and pre-determined the issues and the petitioner would not be in a position
to get justice in his Court.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any justification
for transferring the case in E.O.P.No.14 of 2006 pending on the file of the I
Additional District Judge,, Madurai, to any other Court?
6. Heard both sides.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the
allegations as set out in the petition, would reiterate those points and
highlight that the learned Judge had no business to strike out his own earlier
endorsement on 14.03.2008 and also he had no jurisdiction to assume as though
the arguments were also heard already, even though he had not heard the
arguments.
8. Whereas the learned Counsel for the first respondent herein/the
petitioner would submit that it was only an error on the part of the learned
Judge to specify the date as 20.04.2008 instead of 20.03.2008 while making the
endorsement on 14.03.2008 and subsequently, he corrected it and accordingly,
pronounced the order dismissing the said I.A.No.361 of 2008 in E.O.P.No.14 of
2006, on 20.03.2008 and in the open Court itself, the learned Judge disclosed
about the mistake.
9. Be that as it may, now the preponderance of probabilities involved in
this case should be seen.
10. The order of this Court dated 20.02.2008, in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.282 and
283 of 2008 would reveal that opportunity was given to the petitioner herein to
get examined the Election Officer and that this Court also directed the learned
Judge concerned to dispose of the matter within a month preferably. As such,
paragraph No.10 of the order of this Court is extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
“10. Considering the grievance of the first respondent herein and in view
of Section 258(6) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and Rule 130(1) the Court
below is directed to take up the I.A.Nos.150 and 151 of 2008 and pass necessary
orders to summon the eighth respondent, the then Returning Officer by name
Palanivel. The revision petitioner is directed to pay proper batta for
summoning the eighth respondent, the then Returning Officer by name Palanivel,
in the Election Original Petition for appearance. The Court below is directed
to issue summons for appearance to the eighth respondent, the then Returning
Officer by name Palanivel, at an early date, so as to enable the Election
Original Petition to be concluded as early as possible. If the witness appears
and the examination concludes on an early date, and if there is no impediment as
per law, the matter can be disposed of by the end of this month also.”
11. While so, the records would reveal that the petitioner herein had
chosen to file a new I.A.No.361 of 2008 under Section 10 and 151 of C.P.C for
getting the entire proceedings in E.O.P.No.14 of 2006 stayed in view of the
pendency of W.P.No.8986 of 2006 before this Court.
12. It is that I.A.No.361 of 2008 which was dismissed by the learned Judge
on 20.03.2008 after giving notice and that too after preponing the date fixed
for pronouncing order.
13. In my considered opinion, the very fact of filing I.A.No.361 of 2008
itself paved the way for looking askance at the attitude of the petitioner
herein in not co-operating with the Court for speedy disposal of E.O.P.No.14 of
2006 as per the direction of this Court. It is the very same petitioner who got
an order from this Court in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.282 and 283 of 2008, dated
20.02.2008 and in that, it is specifically found stated that the entire
proceedings in E.O.P.No.14 of 2006 should be disposed of within a month
preferably.
14. The fact remains that even as on that date of passing the order by
this Court, W.P.No.8986 of 2006 was pending. Ignoring all these relevant
factors, simply the petitioner filed I.A.No.361 of 2008 on 07.03.2008 which in
my opinion, ought not to have been filed at all.
15. Suffice to say that the petitioner herein should co-operate with the
Court for speedy disposal as there is nothing on record to show that the lower
Court hustled through the matter or acted in such a manner so as to deprive the
other side in having opportunity of adducing evidence.
16. From the allegations as found set out above, this Court cannot arrive
at a conclusion that the lower Court Judge already pre-determined the issue etc.
In such a case, this transfer petition, in my opinion, by no stretch of
imagination could be entertained.
17. However, there is one submission made by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner which deserves consideration. He would in all fairness submit that
already, no doubt, arguments were heard on a previous occasion, but that was
anterior to the examination of the Election Officer and subsequent to such
examination, no opportunity was given for the arguments to be submitted by
either side.
18. Hence, while dismissing this petition, the trial Court is directed to
post the matter for arguments on 31.03.2008 for hearing both sides and he could
deliver judgment within a week therefrom. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is dismissed.
rsb
To
The I Additional District Judge, Madurai.