Judgment :- 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw and transfer the suit, in O.S No.68 of 2004, before the Subordinate Court, Ootacamud, to any other Court having jurisdiction to hear the matter. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that, even before the commencement of the trial in the suit, in O.S.No.68 of 2004, the petitioner had filed an application, under Section 6A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 and Section 16A of the Madras Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 and the said application had been numbered as I.A.No.454 of 2005 to try the issue as to whether the petitioner is a cultivating tenant, as a preliminary issue. However, the learned judge, without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence available had passed a fair and final order, in I.A.No.454 of 2005, in O.S.No.68 of 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition, before this Court, in C.R.P.No.1490 of 2006. The said Civil Revision Petition had been allowed, directing the Subordinate Court to try the issue and pass appropriate orders thereon. 3. Even after such a direction had been issued by this Court, the learned Subordinate Judge, had passed an order, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and without giving a fresh opportunity to the petitioner to let in evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed the Civil Revision Petition before this Court, in C.R.P.No.1702 of 2008. This court had allowed the Civil Revision Petition and remitted the matter back to the trial Court, to try the matter afresh, taking note of Ex.B54, and to pass appropriate orders. Even after the said direction, having been issued by this Court, the trial Court had taken up for hearing, the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.454 of 2005, in O.S.No.68 of 2004 and had recorded the oral and documentary evidence on both sides. 4. It has been further submitted that the trial Court had tried to dispose of the case, within a short period, without granting time to the petitioner to prepare the case. The request of the petitioner, for further time, was rejected and the petitioner was not even allowed to file the written arguments. 4. It has been further submitted that the trial Court had tried to dispose of the case, within a short period, without granting time to the petitioner to prepare the case. The request of the petitioner, for further time, was rejected and the petitioner was not even allowed to file the written arguments. Therefore, there is an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner as to whether he would get justice before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the Transfer Original Petition in Tr.O.P.No.33 of 2009, before the District Court, Nilgiris. The said original petition had been dismissed, on 30.09.2009. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, before this Court, under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner has filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, only to drag on the proceedings in the suit, in O.S.No.68 of 2004. The Transfer Original Petition No.33 of 2009 filed before the District Court, Nilgiris, had been dismissed. Since the petitioner had not challenged the said order, it had become final. The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner on the same grounds and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. He had also submitted that the issue whether the petitioner is a cultivating tenant had also been decided by this Court, in C.R.P. No.1622 of 2009, by its order,dated 30.07.2009. In such circumstances, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the submissionsmade by the learned counsels for the petitioner, as well as respondents and on perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition. It is also noted that the original petition filed by the petitioner before the District Court, Nilgiris, in Tr.O.P.No.33 of 2009, had been dismissed by an order, dated 30.09.2009. The said order had not been challenged and it had become final. The above Transfer civil Miscellaneous Petition had been filed on the same ground. It is also noted that the original petition filed by the petitioner before the District Court, Nilgiris, in Tr.O.P.No.33 of 2009, had been dismissed by an order, dated 30.09.2009. The said order had not been challenged and it had become final. The above Transfer civil Miscellaneous Petition had been filed on the same ground. Further, the apprehension of the petitioner that the learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, would not be unbiased in the matter cannot be appreciated. The Mere allegation of the petitioner that the learned Subordinate Judge is trying to dispose of the suit in a hurried manner, without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, cannot be countenanced. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it stands dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, the learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, is directed to dispose of the suit, in O.S.No .68 of 2004, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.