S.J. PRAKASH Vs. GNANASEKAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to withdraw A.S.No.1 of 2011 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram and transfer the same to any other Subordinate Court.

(2.) The petitioner is the appellant and respondents are the respondents in A.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram. The petitioner has come out with the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to transfer the said Appeal from the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram to any other Subordinate Court.

(3.) According to the petitioner, there are conflicting views in the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.52 of 2017 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in the Appeal in A.S.No.1 of 2011. The petitioner and respondents filed written arguments in the Appeal and arguments were advanced before the earlier Judicial officer. After transfer of earlier Judicial Officer, no oral arguments were advanced before the present Judicial Officer. The petitioner filed a memo on 01.09.2017, pointing out that no oral arguments were advanced and also sought for disposal of I.A.No.52 of 2017. While so, on 04.09.2017, the learned Judge posted the main appeal for orders and judgment. The learned Judge posted the appeal on 08.09.2017 for arguments. On 08.09.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to advance the arguments in I.A.No.52 of 2017. The learned Judge passed over the matter and in the evening the learned counsel for the petitioner came to know from the Court diary that "judgment already dictated to the steno. Steno is on leave from 06.09.2017 to 12.09.2017. Hence judgment by 13.09.2017." In view of this order, the petitioner apprehended that the learned Judge is biased and judgment would not have been dictated as mentioned in the Court diary.