C.V. KARTHIKEYAN Vs. P. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The transfer petition has been laid by the petitioner seeking transfer of the suit in O.S.No.93 of 2012 pending on the file of the II Additional District Court, Thiruppur to any other Additional District Court at Coimbatore for disposal.

(2.) It is seen that O.S.No.93 of 2012 has been laid by the respondents 12 herein against the petitioner and others for partition. It is seen that the petitioner is contesting the abovesaid suit. Originally, the abovesaid suit had been laid on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore and later on the constitution of the District Court in Thiruppur, it was transferred to the Principal District Court, Thiruppur and later, transferred to the II Additional District Court, Thiruppur. According to the petitioner, he had filed O.S.No.83 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court, FTC V, Coimbatore at Thiruppur for specific performance of the sale agreement against the third respondent herein and it is stated that the said suit ended in a decree in favour of the petitioner and the first appeal preferred by the third respondent in A.S.No.145 of 2007 has been dismissed confirming the decree granted by the lower Court and according to the petitioner, with a view to defeat his right in executing the decree obtained by him in O.S.No.83 of 2005, according to him, at the instigation of the third respondent, the respondents 12 had laid the suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.93 of 201 the evidence of the plaintiffs was completed and according to him, at that juncture, on verification of the documents in the Court, according to him, he had come to understand that the original schedule of the property given in the plaint had been altered and tampered by the plaintiffs. However, the said alteration/insertion was not found in the copy of the plaint served on him and accordingly, apprehending that the Court records had been tampered with by the plaintiffs without seeking necessary amendments with reference to the same, it is stated by the petitioner that he had lodged a complaint to the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, the Vigilance Officer, High Court, Madras and also to the Principal District Judge, Thiruppur and it is his case that notice had been issued, based on the above said complaint, to the Second Additional District Court, Thiruppur and resultantly, according to him, the presiding officer of the Second Additional District Court, Thiruppur got anguished with reference to the same against him and his counsel and further, it is also stated by the petitioner that thereafter, he had filed a petition to reopen and recall the evidence of PW1 and the same had been allowed. However, at the stage of cross examination of PW1, his counsel had returned the bundle to him refusing to appear on his behalf on account of the anguish expressed by the presiding officer of the Court and accordingly, it is stated by the petitioner that the presiding officer had closed the evidence of PW1 once again without providing an opportunity to cross examine him by the petitioner and it is stated by the petitioner that he had again engaged another advocate and another petition to reopen and recall PW1 was preferred and the same was allowed and the same had been posted for cross examination.

(3.) Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the presiding officer of the Court had became upset over the complaint preferred by him in the High Court as regards the tampering of the records in the Court concerned, it is his case that though he had not lodged the complaint in specific against the presiding officer but only lodged the complaint against the plaintiffs qua tampering with the Court records, inasmuch as the presiding officer had became upset over the developments above stated and taking into consideration the in conducive atmosphere for him to conduct the trial, accordingly, has come forward with the petition seeking transfer.