High Court Kerala High Court

M.P.Kamala Bai vs Joseph Thomas on 2 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.P.Kamala Bai vs Joseph Thomas on 2 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(C).No. 262 of 2009()


1. M.P.KAMALA BAI, D/O.KITTUNNI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOSEPH THOMAS, ADVOCATE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :02/12/2009

 O R D E R
                  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                 ----------------------------------------
             Tr.P.(C).Nos.262 AND 263 OF 2009
                     --------------------------------
         Dated this the 2nd day of December 2009
         ----------------------------------------------------------

                                 ORDER

These two petitions are filed under Section 24 of

the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is common in both

the petitions. She is the defendant in O.S No.294 of 2007

pending on the file of 1st Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode

which is instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for a decree of

specific performance on an agreement of sale. She is also

the plaintiff in O.S No. 330 of 2008 pending on the file of the

3rd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode wherein she has sought

for setting aside two documents, a mortgage deed and also

an agreement of sale which are alleged to have been

collected from her by the respondent/defendant in the suit

by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation.

Respondent is stated to be a practicing advocate in the

courts of Kozhikode. Petitioner is stated to be an old lady

aged 78 years permanently settled at Kannur. She seeks

Tr.P.(C).Nos.262
AND 263 OF 2009 Page numbers

transfer of both the suits to the Sub Court, Kannur

canvassing a case that she may not get justice if the cases

are tried at Kozhikode since the respondent is a practicing

advocate at that place. Her inconveniences and difficulties

in appearing before the courts at Kozhikode for

prosecuting/defending the suit are also canvassed for the

transfer requested for.

2. Notice given, the respondent has entered

appearance. The request for transfer is vehemently

opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent contending that the presence of the petitioner

for trial of the suits at the most may be required hardly for

one or two days and the plea canvassed that in view of her

old age she has to undergo a lot of difficulties to attend the

court at Kozhikode hardly merits any consideration.

Similarly, the other ground canvassed that since the

respondent is a practicing advocate in the courts at

Kozhikode, petitioner will not get justice, cannot be accepted

Tr.P.(C).Nos.262
AND 263 OF 2009 Page numbers

as a tenable and sustainable ground for transfer, according

to the counsel.

3. Having regard to the submissions made by the

counsel on both sides and taking note of the facts and

circumstances presented, I find, the fundamental principle in

dispensation of justice is that justice should not only be done

but appear to be done. Petitioner, an aged lady, it seems,

has an apprehension that she will not get justice if the

cases are tried in the courts at Kozhikode since the

respondent is a practicing advocate in the courts at that

place. May be her apprehension is baseless and unfounded,

but, still when such an apprehension is raised, it cannot be

brushed aside for the reason that she is unable to produce

any material to substantiate that ground canvassed for. The

age of the petitioner and also the apprehension canvassed

by her that being a practicing advocate the respondent will

have more access to the courts perhaps not of influencing

the presiding officer but in getting things done for

Tr.P.(C).Nos.262
AND 263 OF 2009 Page numbers

prosecution of the cases, I find it is better and appropriate to

transfer both the cases to a court outside Kozhikode district.

In the given facts of the case, I direct for transfer of both the

cases, O.S No.294/2007 of 1st Additional Sub Court,

Kozhikode and O.S No. 330/2008 of 3rd Additional Sub Court,

Kozhikode to the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery. The 1st

Additional Sub Judge and also 3rd Additional Sub Judge shall

transmit the records of the respective cases to the Principal

Sub Court, Thalassery without delay. Parties are directed to

appear before the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery on

06/01/2010. Subject to the above observations, the petition

is disposed.

Sd/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv