INDUSTRIAL C AND D S LTD Vs. ANDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to transfer O.S.Nos. 33/89, 74/86,47/87, 48/87,49/87, 60/87, 61/87, 64/87, 68/87, 71/87, 81/87,8 /87, 83/87,89/87,97/87,104/87,46/88,47/88, 48/88, 49/88,50/88, 51/88, 52/88, 21/89, 22/89, 23/89, 24/89, 25/89, 26/89,27/89,28/89 and 31/89 pending before the Sub Court, Kasaragod to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Sub Judge dismissed O.S.50/87 and O.S.88/86 repelling petitioner's contention and accepting that of the respondents that the suit transactions are only loan transactions and not hire purchase agreements. Petitioner apprehends that the Sub Judge will take a similar view in all the suits which would lead to its eventual dismissal and so seeks the transfer.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents opposed the petition contending that the grounds mentioned in the petition are totally inadequate for allowing the transfer. It is argued that merely because the Sub Judge has expressed his opinion in two cases the petitioner cannot anticipate that the same view will be adopted by the Sub Judge in all the other cases. It is also pointed out that in one case the question to be decided is only regarding the plea of discharge and so it is not in any way connected with the decision already taken by the Sub Judge in O.S. 50 of 1987 and O.S.88 of 1986.

(3.) The petitioner cannot anticipate decisions in the cases and seek transfer. Merely because a Judge has decided one suit against the petitioner it is not a ground for transfer of the other cases. If such a contention is accepted, it would pave way for never ending transfers. A case can be transferred only when the party has reasonable apprehension that justice will be denied to him. Mere suspicion in this regard will not be sufficient. The fact that the Judge has taken a particular view in a case is not sufficient to transfer other cases from his Court as it may still be open to a lawyer to argue and convince the Judge the acceptability of another view. A judicial order in a case cannot legitimately form the foundation for a transfer unless partiality and partisanship are successfully attributed to the Judge. In the present case there is no such allegation. Hence merely because the Sub Judge decided two suits considering the evidence and circumstances it cannot be taken as a ground for transfer of the other cases.