IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 72 of 2009()
1. MANEERI RUGMINI, D/O.MANEERI NANU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE
... Respondent
2. ANIL BABU, S/O. LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN,
3. SUNIL RAJ, S/O.LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN,
4. SREEKALA, D/O.LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN,
5. SURESH, S/O.LATE MANEERI NARAYANAN,
6. CHANDRAMATHI.M., D/O.MANEERI NANU,
7. SAROJINI.M, D/O.MANEERI NANU,
8. SUKUMARAN @ BALAN,
9. VISHALAKSHI.M, D/O.MANEERI NANU,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJU.S.A
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :30/03/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------
Tr.P.(C) No.72 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009
O R D E R
The plaintiff in O.S.No.227/1992 on the file of the Sub
Court, Manjeri seeks transfer of the suit to any of the Sub
Courts at Kozhikode.
2. The reasons stated for transfer are the following :
i) The daughter of the petitioner is a practicing
lawyer in Manjeri courts.
ii) The husband of the fourth respondent is also a
practicing lawyer in Manjeri courts. He is very
influential.
iii) It will be embarrassing for the plaintiff and her
daughter if the case is tried before the Sub
court, Manjeri.
iv) An application for removal of the case from the
ready list was filed since the physical condition
of the petitioner did not permit her to be
examined in court. That application was
dismissed. Thereafter, she filed an application
Tr.P.(C) No.72 of 2009
2
to examine her on commission. That
application was allowed. At the time of hearing
of the application, various observations were
made by the learned Judge which caused
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
petitioner that she may not get justice, if the
suit is tried in that court. The attitude of the
learned Judge was against the petitioner and
she reasonably believes that the learned Judge
is prejudiced against her.
3. The transfer petition is seriously opposed by
respondents 1 to 5. The counsel for respondents 1 to 5 pointed
out that the suit was filed in 1992. Written statement was filed
in 1993. Issues were settled in 1995 and on five occasions, the
plaint was amended. It is also pointed out that as per the order
in I.A.No.181/2009, the plaintiff was allowed to be examined
on commission. A commissioner was appointed. The
examination of the petitioner/plaintiff was fixed to be held on
08.03.2009. The plaintiff filed the chief affidavit on
19.02.2009. All the lawyers appearing in the case were ready
Tr.P.(C) No.72 of 2009
3
for examination of the plaintiff. However, stating that the
plaintiff was laid up, adjournment was sought for and that
request was allowed. The Transfer Petition was filed in this
background.
4. There is no case that the daughter of the petitioner or
the husband of the fourth respondent started practice recently
in Manjeri courts. They started practice several years ago. The
reason stated that the daughter of the petitioner and the
husband of the fourth defendant are Advocates practising in
Manjeri courts is as such not a reason for a transfer of the
case. The learned Subordinate Judge do not find any
embarrassment in taking up the case for trial and no request
was made by the learned Sub Judge for transfer of the case.
Therefore on that ground, I do not think that the request for
transfer can be entertained. The allegation that the learned
Sub Judge made various observations which caused reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that she may not
get justice from that court is not substantiated. The statement
made by the petitioner is disputed by the respondents. No
specific incident has been pointed out. The allegations are
Tr.P.(C) No.72 of 2009
4
vague and general. On the basis of an allegation for allegation
sake, a case cannot be transferred. To my mind, the reasons
stated by the petitioner for transfer of the case are not
sufficient for allowing the application for transfer. The
Transfer Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be afforded a
reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence. The court below
shall consider the same and grant reasonable opportunity to
the petitioner to adduce evidence. At the same time, this
opportunity should not be allowed to be taken advantage of by
the plaintiff to protract the case instituted in the year 1992.
With the above observations, the Transfer Petition is
dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
pac