IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-03-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.No.770 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Santhamani .. Petitioner. Versus S.Thirumurthi .. Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 10.2.2010, passed in T.R.O.P.No.22 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondent : Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan for Mr.S.Sithirai Anandan O R D E R
This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 10.2.2010, passed in T.R.O.P.No.22 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. Even though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, has acted in a mala fide manner by taking up for hearing H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2009, without considering the request of the petitioner to await the result of the civil revision petition, which was being preferred by the petitioner before this Court.
3. He had further submitted that when the case was posted, on 18.2.2010, a representation had been made, stating that the certified copy of the order, passed in T.R.O.P.No.22 of 2010, had been received only, on 17.2.2010, and that the petitioner had intended to file a civil revision petition before this Court and therefore, the matter has to be adjourned by a week. However, the learned Judge had, without considering the request made by the petitioner, directed the respondent to mark his proof affidavit only to show that the trial had commenced, in order to defeat the rights of the petitioner. The learned Judge had started to proceed with H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2009, on the pretext that this Court by its order, dated 11.12.2009, made in C.R.P.(PD) No.2392 of 2009, had directed him to hear and dispose of the matter, within a period of six months.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that, this Court may be pleased to transfer H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2009, pending on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, to some other Court outside Tiruppur, having the jurisdiction to hear the same. He had also stated that it is a serious problem involving the human rights of the petitioner and therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the transfer of the case, as prayed for by the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner is doing forum shopping by making certain unfounded allegations against the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, who had passed the order, dated 10.2.2010, in T.R.O.P.No.22 of 2010. The mere apprehension of the petitioner cannot be a ground to transfer H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2009, as requested by the petitioner.
6. He had also submitted that this Court, while dismissing C.R.P.(PD)No.2392 of 2009, by an order, dated 11.12.2009, had directed that the matter should be taken up and disposed of within six months. It had also stated that the observations made by the trial Court, while disposing of the I.A.No.1181 of 2008, shall not be relied upon by the Court, or by the parties concerned. Since, H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2009, has been taken up by the concerned Court for final disposal and that it has been listed for final hearing, the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained, at this stage.
7. The learned counsel had also submitted that the respondent is a cancer patient, aged about 63 years and therefore, the petitioner should not be allowed to delay the hearing of H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2009, unnecessarily. The transfer petition, in Tr.O.P.No.22 of 2010, dated 21.1.2010, had been filed only, on 27.1.2010, after this Court had passed an order, dated 11.12.2009, in C.R.P.(PD) No.2392 of 2009. In such circumstances, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, while passing the order, dated 10.2.2010, in Tr.O.P.No.22 of 2010, had acted in a mala fide manner. Merely for the reason that he had dismissed the said petition stating that H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2009 had to be disposed of, as per the directions issued by this Court, in its order, dated 11.12.2009, in C.R.P.(PD) No.2392 of 2009, it cannot be taken as sufficient proof to substantiate the allegations made by the petitioner. The grounds raised in the present civil revision petition are untenable and devoid of merits. The contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stating that the unusual urgency shown by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in taking up H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2009, for trial and disposal would be sufficient proof of his mala fide motive, cannot be accepted. Such allegations cannot be permitted to be made, without sufficient proof to substantiate the same. In such view of the matter, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
C.R.P.No.770 of 2010