Anim adverting upon the order 1.7.2008 passed in Tr.O.P.No.124 of 2007 by the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, this civil revision petition is filed.
2. Concisely and compendiously, the case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, as stood exposited from the records, could be portrayed thus:-
The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.45 of 2006 in Sub Court, Panruti, for partition. While so, first respondent/first defendant-Selvaraj-the father of the petitioner/plaintiff filed Tr.O.P.No.124 of 2007 for transfer of the case from Panruti sub Court to some other Court within the Cuddalore District on the ground that he lost faith in the Sub Court, which was seized of the matter. The learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, after hearing both sides, ordered transfer of the case from Sub Court, Panruti, to Sub Court, Virudhachalam.
3. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed on various grounds by the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would develop her argument, placing reliance on the grounds of revision to the effect that even though the learned Principal District Judge gave a categorical finding to the effect that absolutely there was no merit in the transfer petition, nonetheless purely for the purpose of avoiding future bias in the mind of the petitioner/plaintiff, he ordered transfer. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff such an approach on the part of the Principal District Judge is legally not tenable.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant would put forth his argument to the effect that the first respondent/first defendant is a septuagenarian and he is suffering a lot at the hands of the petitioner/plaintiff-Elumalai, who is indulging in all sorts of unwanted activities. The learned counsel, by drawing the attention of this Court to the paper cuttings and various copies of FIRs, which were lodged at the instance of the Elumalai and Gowri respectively, would develop his argument to the effect that the said Elumalai-the plaintiff would not permit the first respondent/first defendant-Selvaraj to appear before the Sub-Court Panruti and give his evidence.
5. When all said and done, considering the pro et contra, in this factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Pincipal District Judge is ex facie and prima facie erroneous, warranting interference.
6. At paragraph 7 of the order, the learned Principal District Judge ultimately gave a categorical finding that absolutely there was no merit in the transfer petition and after recording such a finding, he ought to have dismissed the transfer original petition. But on the other hand, simply in a cryptic manner, by setting out the following words 'to erase any possible future bias in the minds of the petitioner', he ordered transfer of the case. At this juncture my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the trite proposition of law that the jurisdiction of a Judge should not be taken away on flimsy grounds. The parties to the lis should not be given carte blanche to approach the higher forum for getting transfer of the case at their whims and fancies. If that be allowed, then the entire judicial system would be taken for a side and set at naught and no Judge would be able to adjudge any cause with confidence and uprightness. The learned Principal District Judge correctly observed that as per Section 89 of the C.P.C.every Judge is expected to suggest compromise and it cannot be termed as 'Kattapanchayat', but after holding so he fell into error in transferring the case.
7.A bare perusal of the affidavit of the petitioner/plaintiff, accompanying the transfer petition, also would in no way exemplify or demonstrate any specific instance which would show the bias or prejudice of the Judge as against the first respondent/first defendant-Selvaraj. Hence, in such a case, the order of the learned Principal District Judge is set aside and the Sub-Judge Panruti shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.
8. The learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant would make an extempore submission that the said Elumalai-plaintiff-the eldest son of the first respondent/first defendant drove the petitioner/plaintiff from Panruti and hence it would be difficult for him to attend the Court at all. Hence, in these circumstances, I would like to issue direction to the Sub-Judge to address the SHO concerned of Panruti Police Station to the effect that whenever the said first respondent/first defendant-Selvaraj attends the Sub-Court,Panruti, proper police protection shall be given to him.
9. In the result, the order dated 1.7.2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Msk To Principal District Court, Cuddalore