The District Judge, Thodupuzha transferred a few original suits (45 in number) from the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kattappana to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Thodupuzha by Ext.P1 order. The original suits were in different stages of the trial and recording of oral evidence of the parties in some has even commenced. The petitioner who is a party defendant in the original suits (along with others) challenges the order of transfer invoking the supervisory jursidiction. All the parties to the original suits have not been made parties in this original petition and their counsel in the court below have been arrayed as respondents. 2. I heard Mr.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.K.K.Chandran Pillai, Senior Advocate on behalf of the fifth respondent.
3. A District Judge can transfer original suits from one Subordinate Court to another or make over an appeal suit to another in the exigencies of O.P (C) No.3950 of 2013 2 administration. How best the dispensation of justice should be streamlined in the Subordinate Courts must be left to the administrative discretion of the District Judge in charge of the District. Several factors including the balancing of work in the Subordinate Courts (taking note of the pendency of cases) would have gone in the administrative decision. Ext.P1 order passed on the administrative side by the District Judge shall not be lightly interfered with especially when there is no allegation of extraneous consideration.
4. Even otherwise the original petition deserves to be dismissed for non joinder of the party defendants in the original suits as respondents in this original petition. Service of notice on the counsel in the court below is a permissible exercise under Rule 59 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 which has to be resorted to as a last course. Such a contingency is contemplated only when an interim order passed by the court below is impugned and the main proceedings are still pending in the Subordinate Court. An administrative direction akin to Ext.P1 order cannot be impugned by the petitioner without impleading all O.P (C) No.3950 of 2013 3 the parties likely to be affected by the final verdict in this Original Petition.
5. The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India of course includes the administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. [See: Shalini Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] and Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal [(2013) 9 SCC 374]. But the administrative direction in the instant case is challenged only on the ground of convenience of the parties and also the convenience of their counsel in the court below. Such a grievance can better be ventilated in a petition for transfer under Section 24 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 and not in an original petition of this nature.
The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.
nj.
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.