Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 599 (MAD)

C. Subramani v. T. Sundaram & Others

2000-06-26

V.KANAGARAJ

body2000
Judgment : 1. Both these transfer C.M.Ps. have been filed by one and the same petitioner, the first on in Tr.C.M.P.No.16686 of 1999 praying to withdraw A.S.No.52 of 1998 from the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri and transfer the same to any other Sub Court in Tiruvallur District and the second one in Tr.C.M.P.No.20785 of 1999 praying to withdraw C.M.A.No.27 of 1998 from the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri and transfer the same to any other Sub Court in Tiruvallur District to be tried along with A.S.No.52 of 1998. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference Tr.C.M.P.No.16686 of 1999 is hereinafter referred to as the first Transfer C.M.P. and Tr.C.M.P.No.20785 of 1999 as the second Transfer C.M.P. 3. It is to be noted that though the petitioner and the subject matter involved in both the above Transfer C.M.Ps. is one and the same and the respondents 2 to 6 in first Transfer C.M.P. are the respondents in the second Transfer C.M.P., the relief sought for in both the above Transfer C.M.Ps. is different since in the first Transfer C.M.P. it is the appeal suit and in the second Transfer C.M.P. it is the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which are sought to be transferred. .4. On a fair assessment of the facts and circumstances encircling the whole affair connecting to both the above transfer petitions and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what is understood is that the petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.307 of 1986 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ponneri for permanent injunction and the same having come to be dismissed, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.32 of 1994 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur and the said appeal suit got suo motu transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee and renumbered as A.S.No.31 of 1995; that during pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner herein has filed a petition under O.41, Rule 27 to mark certain documents as additional evidence; that the said appeal. Suit was remanded to the trial court for a fresh trial to be held; that in the meantime, the jurisdiction of the Court of District Munsif, Ponneri was changed and hence O.S.No.307 of 1986 was transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur and renumbered as O.S.No.948 of 1997; that when the said suit was pending, the respondent herein illegally entered into the suit property, destroyed the fence and caused damage to the tune of Rs.50,000 and hence the petitioner herein besides lodging a complaint with the police also filed a contempt petition in I.A.No.773 of 1997 in O.S.No.948 of 1997 before the Court of District Munsif, Thiruvetriyur; that after trial, the said O.S.No.948 of 1997 got dismissed on 22. 1998 and the learned District Munsif, without any discussion regarding the contempt petition in I.A.No.773 of 1997 closed the same; that aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.948 of 1997, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 1998 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur and against the closing of the Contempt Petition in I.A.No.773 of 1997, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A.No.4 of 1998 before the same Subordinate Judge; that both the said A.S.No.12 of 1998 and C.M.A.No.4 of 1998 got transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge at Ponneri on its formation and they were respectively renumbered as A.S.No.52 of 1998 and C.M.A.No.27 of 1998; that the petitioner herein filed Transfer O.P.Nos.39 and 40 of 1999 before the Court of District Judge, Chengalpattu seeking to withdraw A.S.No.52 of 1998 and C.M.A.No.27 of 1998 from the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri and transfer them to any other Sub Court in the Tiruvallur District and on the same being dismissed, he came forward to file both the above Transfer C.M.Ps. seeking the same relief as he did before the Court of District Judge, Chengalpattu. 5. seeking the same relief as he did before the Court of District Judge, Chengalpattu. 5. The reasons assigned on the part of the petitioner for seeking transfer of the appeal suit and the civil miscellaneous appeal from the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri is that in spite of the petitioner having got a good case, one of the respondents in both the above petitions viz., Jambulingam, who is said to be serving as Secretary to the Legal Aid Cell, Tiruvallur, is openly declaring outside the Court premises that he could move the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri with the help of his Advocate and that he was sure to win the case by any means. The petitioner would contend that on account of such declaration made on the part of the said Jambulingam, he became perturbed and apprehending danger to justice and fair play at the hands of the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri he has come forward to file both the above C.M.Ps. seeking transfer of the appeal suit and the civil miscellaneous appeal. 6. In the above circumstances, the sole point that is to be decided by this Court is whether both the above Transfer C.M.Ps. are to be allowed or not. .7. In a nutshell it could be summed up that the petitioner has absolutely no iota of grievance against the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, which is revealed throughout both the above Transfer C.M.Ps. However, it is able to be seen that the petitioner has become perturbed on account of the challenge or declaration said to have been made in the open, outside the Court, in the known circles by one of the respondents in both the above Transfer C.M.Ps. viz., Jambulingam that he could influence the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri wherein both the A.S.No.52 of 1998 and C.M.A.No.27 of 1998 are pending. 8. viz., Jambulingam that he could influence the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri wherein both the A.S.No.52 of 1998 and C.M.A.No.27 of 1998 are pending. 8. There is no denying of the fact that the said Jambulingam is occupying a position some what connected to the local Legal Aid Cell and that too only an allegation made on the part of the petitioner that the said Jambulingam proclaimed; that he would influence the Presiding Officer through his Advocate and see that both in the appeal suit and the civil miscellaneous appeal, the respondents would emerge victorious and on account of this open statement said to have been made on the part of the said Jambulingam, the petitioner, having mentally become disturbed and to be on the safer side in order to safeguard his precious rights and interest in the matters pending before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, has come forward to institute the above Transfer C.M.Ps. having already failed to impress the District Judge, Chengalpattu to get these two matters transferred to some other Court of competent jurisdiction of remedy. 9. As already mentioned, there is absolutely no allegation made against the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri by the petitioner herein, which shows the firm faith of the petitioner in the judiciary in general and the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri in particular. But, this Court is able to assess that the petitioner has become perturbed on account of the said comment alleged to have been made on the part of the said Jambulingam, who is also said to be the Secretary of the local Legal Aid Cell and hence the petitioner has come forward to get his cases transferred to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in the district of Tiruvallur. This Court is also able to understand the troubles and difficulties that the petitioner himself has to undergo in conducting both his cases in some other Court, in case they are ordered to be transferred. However, there is no doubt in the fidelity or the faith of the petitioner in the judiciary and in the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri. .10. However, there is no doubt in the fidelity or the faith of the petitioner in the judiciary and in the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri. .10. If at all, the statements or remarks said to have been made by the said Jambulingam, who is one of the respondents in both the above petitions, is to be taken as true (which is only subject to proof) indirectly it would mean that the petitioner has become apprehended in case the statement is true. So far as this Court is concerned, it would ascertain that such a statement might not be true since on Presiding Officer of a Court of judiciary could be taken for granted to yield to such easy temptations or virtue of parties and hence it is not only the duty of this Court to instill such confidence in the mind of the petitioner about the independence of the judiciary and its free and fair decisions made in a firm manner but also to allay the fears and apprehensions of the petitioner that justice will prevail and nothing else much less as it is alleged to have been uttered on the part of one of the respondents herein would be allowed to creep in. Hence, reassuring the petitioner and instilling the sense of confidence in the judiciary in general and the independence and uprightness of the Presiding Officer of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, in particular, this Court has to direct the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri to go ahead with the conduct of enquiry in both the appeal suit and the civil miscellaneous appeal, which are pending on its file. The petitioner is also advised to co-operate with the Court in early disposal of the appeals. Justice will prevail at all costs at the hands of the same Presiding Officer, who will decide both the matters without the least hindrance caused to the supremacy of law and the suzerainty of justice. 11. In result, subject to the above observations, both the above Transfer C.M.Ps. have become unnecessary and the same are dismissed as such. 12. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. Consequently, C.M.P. No.16687 and 20786 of 1999 are also dismissed. 14. 11. In result, subject to the above observations, both the above Transfer C.M.Ps. have become unnecessary and the same are dismissed as such. 12. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. Consequently, C.M.P. No.16687 and 20786 of 1999 are also dismissed. 14. The Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri is hereby directed to dispose of both A.S. No.52 of 1998 and C.M.A.No.27 of 1998 within three months from the date of receipt of this Order, taking up the same on priority basis and posting them out of turn, since they are pending for long.