P V CHANDRASEKAR Vs. VALLINAYAGAM (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.217 of 2007 pending on the file of the Second Additional District Court, Poonamallee, has come forward with the petition seeking to transfer the abovesaid suit proceeding from the file of the Second Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee to any other District Court situated at Thiruvallur or to any District Court in any nearby District.

(2.) O.S.No.217 of 2007 is found to be laid by the petitioner for partition and separate possession against the respondents. Thus, it is found that the above suit is a 10 year old suit. Such being the position, all concerned should endeavour to ensure that the abovesaid suit gets concluded at the earliest point of time. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, it is found that when the above suit is taken up for trial, the petitioner has laid a petition for causing amendment to the plaint in I.A.No.254 of 2018 and after contest, it is seen that the abovesaid petition has come to be dismissed by the Court below on 04.04.2018. Thereafter, the matter had been posted by the Court below for trial on 09.04.2018 and subsequently adjourned for trial finally on 16.04.2018.

(3.) Thus, it is found that the petitioner had full knowledge that the matter stood adjourned for trial on 16.04.2018. However, according to the petitioner, as he was unwell on that date and could not appear and lead evidence and his counsel was also out of station in connection with the Bar Council Election, it is stated that no one appeared before the Court on the said date, when the matter was listed for trial. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Court below instead of dismissing the suit for default, had closed the plaintiff's evidence and posted the matter for recording the evidence of the defendants and according to him, the said procedure had been adopted by the said Court, with a view to pronounce the judgment in the above matter on merits and further, according to him, the Court had openly declared that she would ensure that the abovesaid case would be determined on merits and on that mindset, she had, instead of dismissing the suit for default, on 16.04.2018, had closed the petitioner's evidence and adjourned the matter for the evidence of the respondents and on the adjourned date, it is stated that the Court had proceeded to examine DW1 and marked exhibits through him and adjourned the matter for cross on 04.06.2018. It is stated by the petitioner that on 04.06.2018, his counsel filed a memo before the Court concerned that a complaint had been lodged against the presiding officer in the High Court for the injustice meted out to the petitioner by the concerned Court and accordingly, the Court had adjourned the matter after recording the abovesaid memo and setting forth the abovesaid reasons, it is contended by the petitioner that as the acts of the abovesaid Court i.e. the presiding officer of the said Court being against the interest of the petitioner and seem to be in a pre determined manner to dispose of the case in favour of the respondents and not being impartial and apprehending that he may not get justice from the Court, accordingly, had moved the transfer petition.