Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. Despite, notice being served, there is no representation on behalf of the first respondent either in person or through the counsel.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:
The petitioner/second plaintiff, along with his elder brother/first plaintiff, filed a suit for partition against his father, who is the second respondent/first defendant before the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur in O.S.No.25 of 2008. There are actually three suits clubbed together for a joint trial, viz., the suit filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.25 of 2008; and the other suits filed by the third respondent/D2, who is a third party, in O.S.No.99 of 2006 seeking specific performance and O.S.No.362 of 2006 for a permanent injunction, against the petitioners and the first respondent herein and all are pending on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur. O.S.No.25 of 2008 is a suit for partition, which is now sought to be transferred by the petitioner to any other court.
3. Admittedly the parties in all the three suits are one and the same. The suits are also almost of 10 years old and the same are being tried in common by the Court below and further the trial is in progress. Now, the transfer is sought for by the petitioner/second plaintiff in O.S.No.25 of 2008 on certain allegations on the Presiding Officer. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Presiding Officer had made certain remarks to the petitioner to change his counsel. It appears that the counsel was not present on that particular day and from the affidavit, it is also seen that even the petitioner was not present. But, however, the allegation is now made against the Presiding Officer as to certain comments being passed about them in their absence. It is not stated in the affidavit as to how did the petitioner come to the knowledge about the same. It is also stated that the second defendant/third respondent herein had made an open challenge in the Court that he would win the case. It would be any bodys aspiration to win a case, once it is before the Court and that cannot be put against a person.
4. The present petition is filed making allegations against the Presiding Officer impugning his fairness, independence and impartiality of the matter. Even the counsel for the third respondent is not spared. A vow made by the third respondents counsel has been taken as an offensive statement by the petitioner. This Court is unable to understand as to why only one suit alone has to be transferred, when it has come to the fag end of the trial and when there is no substantial material placed before this Court, for transferring the same. There is absolutely no record placed before this Court excepting the support of the petitioners father, who has also been arrayed as a party in the suit.
5. Considering the convenience of the parties, all the suits are now clubbed together and the parties also have submitted to the same. On frivolous and vexatious allegations against the Presiding Officer, a transfer cannot be sought for and the same cannot be entertained also.
6. In view of the above factual scenario, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly the same fails and is dismissed. The learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur is directed to dispose of the suits on or before 30.04.2017. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.01.2017 vj2 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes To The I Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J vj2 Tr.C.M.P.No.826 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 06.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in