MARY SEBASTIAN Vs. V. THOMAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a widow is the defendant in O.S. 153 of 2005 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery. That is a suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for cancellation of a document executed by third defendant as Power of Attorney Holder in favour of the late husband of petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 36 of 1998 in respect of the same property against petitioner and others and for a decree for injunction against trespass into the said property. Suits were jointly tried and evidence was almost over. At that stage one of the defendants was put in the box. He was a practicing lawyer of that station and that fact was brought out. Learned Sub Judge felt embarrassed to continue with trial of the suit and stopped the trial. Learned Sub Judge requested learned District Judge, Kalpetta to transfer the case to some other court. Leaned District Judge, Kalpetta accepted the request and passed order on the administrative side transferring the suits to that court. There, the suits have been renumbered as O.S. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2010. Petitioner challenges the order of transfer in this Writ Petition. Learned Counsel contends that petitioner being a widow finds it difficult to travel the distance from Sulthan Bathery to Kalpetta and that since her lawyers at Sulthan Bathery are not interested in conducting cases at Kalpetta it necessitated petitioner to engage some other lawyer. In the meantime cases are posted on 09.09.2010 for further steps. In the circumstances it is requested that the order of transfer may be stayed.

(2.) IT is true that towards the fag end of the proceeding learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery made request for transfer of the case to some other court. I must bear in mind that it was when one of the defendants was put in the box that it came to the notice of learned Sub Judge that he was a practicing lawyer of the station and hence learned Sub Judge thought that it was not proper for him to dispose the suits and requested the learned District Judge to transfer the case. I do not consider it proper to compel learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery who expressed embarrassment to dispose of the suits to continue with the trial. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge.

(3.) RESULTANTLY , Writ Petition is dismissed. But learned District Judge, Kalpetta is directed to post O.S. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2010 for further steps after three weeks from this day.