THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR Tr.CMP.No.460 of 2014 Date:09.12.2014 Between:
S. Rama Krishna . Petitioner.
AND M. Janardhan Naidu . Respondent.
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR Tr.CMP.No.460 of 2014 ORDER:
This petition is filed to withdraw O.S.No.69/2012 from the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and transfer the same to any other competent Court in Chittoor District.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioner herein is defendant in O.S.No.69/2012, which is filed for recovery of money. According to affidavit of the petitioner, the Presiding Officer, on 28-04-2014, abruptly stopped cross-examination of P.W.1 got down from bench and after resuming continued cross-examination without administering oath when the petitioner requested the Curt to administer the oath, the Presiding Officer rejected his request and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences of booking him under Contempt of Court and that the petitioner apprehends that he may not get fair justice in the said Court. He also contended that he filed some applications; one is for framing preliminary issue and other is for prosecuting P.W.1 for filing false affidavit and those petitions were not considered by the Presiding Officer and the petition filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C was returned, after numbering though section of law is mentioned in the application and on these aspects, he suspected that the trial Judge biased towards him and he may not get fair justice and requested for transfer.
4. On the other hand, other side disputed the affidavit averments of the petitioner and denied the incident dated 28- 04-2014 and contended that the present petition is filed only to drag the proceedings by suppressing the material facts.
5. This Court, after registering this petition, has called for the remarks of the Presiding Officer and the learned Presiding Officer submitted his remarks through District Judge and as seen from the remarks, after this alleged incident, two more witnesses were examined and they were also cross-examined on behalf of the defendant/petitioner herein and he denied the incident dated 28-04-2014.
As per the remarks of the officer, it appears that the counsel for petitioner became wild and started shouting and on hearing that, litigant public and other advocates entered into the Court hall and for that reason, he got down from the bench discontinuing cross-examination in the middle by informing the advocates that he would come later and thereafter, he resumed the bench and continued the cross- examination and the behaviour of the petitioner spoiled dignity and decency of the Court.
6. Heard arguments of both sides.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Presiding Officer in a biased way is not considering the applications filed by the petitioner, and therefore, the matter may be transferred to any other Court for fair trial.
8. But as seen from the remarks of the officer, even after this incident, witnesses are examined and they were cross- examined by the petitioner’s counsel and if really, the Presiding Officer is of biased nature, the petitioner ought not have proceeded with the examination of the other witnesses. As rightly pointed out by the Advocate for respondent that even this transfer application is filed, after completion of the cross-examination of the other witnesses. As seen from the report, P.W.2 was examined on 16-06- 2014 and cross-examined on 17-06-2014, but this transfer petition is filed on 23-07-2014 i.e., long after examination of P.W.2. As seen from the report of the Presiding Officer, when the matter is at the stage of defendant’s evidence, this transfer petition is filed.
9. On a scrutiny of the material, I have to accept the contention of the respondent/plaintiff, that the present transfer petition is filed only to protract the case, because if really the apprehension of the petitioner/defendant is correct, the reasons for cross-examination of other witnesses, after this incident, should have been reflected in the transfer petition. So on a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that the grounds urged for the transfer are not tenable and if the petitioner is aggrieved in not considering the I.As filed by him, the remedy for him is otherwise by filing necessary revisions, but not a transfer petition.
10. For these reasons, the Tr.CMP is dismissed with costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Tr.CMP, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:09.12.2014 mrb