Anim-adverting upon the order dated 17.9.2008 passed in Tr.O.P.No.66 of 2008 in O.S.No.518 of 2007 by the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, this civil revision petition is filed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, as stood exposited from the records, could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
The Tr.O.P.No.66 of 2008 was filed by the second defendant in O.S.No.518 of 2007 before the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. Whereas the learned District Judge dismissed it vide its order dated 17.9.2008. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order, this revision petition has been focussed by the second defendant on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/second defendant would develop his argument to the effect that earlier the learned Additional District Munsif granted an order of injunction as against the defendants holding that the plaintiff is in possession; being aggrieved by the same, C.M.A.was filed and the appellate Court reversed the order of the District Munsif; as against which, C.R.P. was filed, in which this Court ordered status-quo to be maintained and that the suit itself should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, Tr.O.P.No.66 of 2008 was filed for transferring the O.S. from the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, to some other Court on the ground that the learned Judge had already formed an opinion that D2 was not in possession of the suit property. As such, the revision petitioner/D2 would submit that D2 might not be able to get justice at the hands of the Additional District Munsif.
5. The perusal of the order of the Principal District Judge would exemplify that he adverted to the relevant facts and observed correctly that simply because, earlier the Additional District Munsif had passed an injunction order as against D2, there was nothing to indicate that he would stick on to that view despite his order was reversed/modified.
6. At this juncture, I would recollect the trite proposition of law that a Judge is expected to decide the case before him without any parti pris, bias or prejudice. Views expressed in interim proceedings cannot have any bearing in the final adjudication. I could see no plausible reason on the part of the revision petitioner/D2, for having formed for himself such to formulate a view that because the Additional District Munsif passed such order of injunction as against D2, even in the main suit, he would decide against him. Passing order in interlocutory application is different from passing judgment in the O.S., after conducting full trial. The Principal District Judge also sensitised in his order the Additional District Munsif to see that the matter is disposed of uninfluenced by his earlier interim order of injunction. Hence, in these circumstances, because the second defendant developed some doubt about the chance of getting justice at the hands of Additional District Munsif, transfer of the case cannot be ordered.
7. It is a trite proposition that at the whims and fancies of a party, a case should not be transferred from one Court to another. Hence, I could see no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, I would direct the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, to see that he conducts the case without giving any room for suspicion. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Msk To The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore