Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4009 (MAD)

K. Muthuramalingam v. Kalyani Raghunathan

2010-09-03

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Both the civil revision petitions have been taken up together for final hearing, by the consent of the counsels, as they involve common issues. 2. The civil revision petition No.873 of 2010, has been filed against the order, dated 26.2.2010, made in Tr.O.P.No.22 of 2010, in R.C.A.No.1087 of 2005, on the file of the learned Chief Judge,(Full Additional charge), Court of small causes, at Chennai. 3. The civil revision petition No.874 of 2010, has been filed against the order, dated 26.2.2010, made in Tr.O.P.No.23 of 2010, in R.C.A.No.1138 of 2005, on the file of the learned Chief Judge, (Full Additional charge), Court of small causes, at Chennai. 4. It has been stated that Tr.O.P.No.22 of 2010, had been filed by the petitioner to transfer R.C.A.No.1087 of 2005, from the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, to the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Tr.O.P.No.23 of 2010, had been filed to transfer R.C.A.No.1138 of 2005, from the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, to the file of learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 5. The rent control appeals, in R.C.A.Nos.1087 and 1138 of 2005, had been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 2.8.2005, passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, made in R.C.O.P.No.172 of 2004, fixing the fair rent for the premises in question, at Rs.8,535/-per month. It has been stated that R.C.O.P.No.172 of 2004, had been filed by the landlord, the respondent in the present civil revision petitions, for the fixation of fair rent, in respect of her property occupied by the petitioner herein, as a tenant. The learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, by an order, dated 2.8.2005, made in R.C.O.P.No.172 of 2004, had fixed the fair rent for the premises in question at Rs.8,535/-, per month. Against the said order, the petitioner in the present civil revision petitions had filed an appeal, in R.C.A.No.1087 of 2005, on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The respondent herein had also filed an appeal against the order, dated 2.8.2005. Against the said order, the petitioner in the present civil revision petitions had filed an appeal, in R.C.A.No.1087 of 2005, on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The respondent herein had also filed an appeal against the order, dated 2.8.2005. While the proceedings in the appeals were going on before the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, Tr.O.P.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010, had been filed by the petitioner, in the present civil revision petitions, before the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, under Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to transfer the appeals in R.C.A.Nos.1087 and 1138 of 2005, from the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, to the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 6. The transfer of the appeals had been sought for on the allegation that the petitioner had a serious apprehension that he would not get justice in the appeals before the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, because of the attitude of the learned Presiding officer of the said Court. He had also stated that he has an apprehension that the learned judge is leaning towards the respondent landlord. 7. By a common order, dated 26.2.2010, the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, had dismissed the petitions stating that no specific reason has been stated by the petitioner for his apprehension. The learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, had also stated, in his order, that the petitioner is indulging in delaying tactics to prolong the proceedings, unnecessarily. The respondent is a senior citizen, aged about 84 years and he has been fighting for justice for the past two decades. The learned Judge had also stated that this Court by its order, dated 30.10.2009, made in C.R.P.(NPD) No.971 of 2006, had directed that the appeal, in R.C.A.No.1087 of 2005, shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The three months period fixed by this Court expires, on 15.3.2010. For the said reasons, the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small causes, Chennai, had dismissed Tr.O.P.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010, by his order, dated 26.2.2010. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the said order of the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dated 26.2.2010. 8. For the said reasons, the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small causes, Chennai, had dismissed Tr.O.P.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010, by his order, dated 26.2.2010. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the said order of the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dated 26.2.2010. 8. Even though various grounds have been raised in the Civil Revision Petitions, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in the civil revision petitions, is that the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, ought to have appreciated the fact that the apprehension of the petitioner was genuine in nature. He had also stated that the very fact that the respondent landlord had vehemently opposed the petitions for the transfer of the appeals would clearly indicate that she was unduly keen that the appeals should be heard in the same Court. The stand taken by the respondent would lend credence to the allegations made by the petitioner. The learned Judge hearing the transfer original petitions ought to have ordered the transfer, as prayed for by the petitioner, as there was sufficient time for the Court concerned to hear and dispose of the appeal, within the time stipulated by the High Court, after it is transferred. The learned Judge had also erred in holding that if the appeals had been transferred, as prayed for by the petitioner, the conditions imposed by the High Court could not have been complied with. 9. Even though sufficient reasons had been shown by the petitioner, in support of his apprehension that the Presiding Officer of the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is biased in favour of the respondent, the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, had erroneously passed the order, dated 26.2.2010, in Tr.O.P.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010, dismissing the said petitions. 10. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the Tr.O.P.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010, have been filed by the petitioner only to delay the proceedings in the appeals, in R.C.A.Nos.1087 and 1138 of 2005. 11. The respondent landlord is a senior citizen, aged about 84 years and he has been fighting for justice for over two decades. The petitioner being a practicing Advocate, cannot be permitted to interfere with the process of dispensation of justice by the Courts of law. 11. The respondent landlord is a senior citizen, aged about 84 years and he has been fighting for justice for over two decades. The petitioner being a practicing Advocate, cannot be permitted to interfere with the process of dispensation of justice by the Courts of law. This Court, by its order, dated 30.10.2009, made in C.R.P.(NPD) No.971 of 2006, had directed the appellate Court hearing the rent control appeal, in R.C.A.No.1087 of 2005, to hear and dispose of the appeal, on merits, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of its order. Accordingly, the rent control appeal ought to be disposed of, on or before 15.3.2010. 12. He had also submitted that the appeals are listed for final disposal, on 8.3.2010. Further, the petitioner has made unwarranted allegations against the Presiding Officer of VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, who is hearing the appeals. No specific reason has been given for the apprehension of the petitioner that the learned Presiding Officer is biased in favour of the respondent. The learned Chief Judge, the Court of small Causes, Chennai, has rightly dismissed the Transfer original petitions filed by the petitioner, by its order, dated 26.2.2010. Therefore, the civil revision petitions filed by the petitioner should be dismissed, with costs. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, dated 29.4.1994, made in C.R.P.No.835 of 1994, (R.MANICKAM Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD., LAKSHMI BUILDINGS, USILAMPATTI ROAD, KOCHADAI, MADURAI-16), wherein this Court had directed the transfer of the industrial dispute, in I.D.No.387 of 1989, on the file of the labour Court, Madurai, to the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. Even though the allegations made against the Presiding Officer, of the labour Court, Madurai, have not been substantiated, this Court had directed such transfer of the dispute to avoid further embarrassment and to prevent further acrimony between the parties and the presiding officer of the labour Court. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- 14.1. In ARULMIGHU ALAVANDAR CHARITIES, MAHABALIPURAM Vs. KANNIAPPAN ( 1998 MLJ 408 ), wherein, it has been held that the opinion expressed by a Judge about the result of the suit cannot be a valid ground for the transfer of the suit to another Court. In ARULMIGHU ALAVANDAR CHARITIES, MAHABALIPURAM Vs. KANNIAPPAN ( 1998 MLJ 408 ), wherein, it has been held that the opinion expressed by a Judge about the result of the suit cannot be a valid ground for the transfer of the suit to another Court. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner should be justifiable in nature. It cannot be mere wishes and whims of the petitioner. 14.2. In MANOHARAN Vs. ENERCON (INDIA) LTD., (2007) 1 MLJ 420 ) wherein, it has been held that the mere whims and wishes of the party cannot be a reasonable ground for transferring cases. It would be a dangerous principle if transfer of cases is ordered, merely on the ground that the court is declining long adjournments. The transfer of the case from one court to another is a serious matter. It would cause unjustifiable stigma on the Court from which the case is sought to be transferred. 14.3. In C.S.I.DIOCESE OF KANNIYAKUMARI Vs. D.S.WILSON (2008) 6 MLJ 365 ), it had been held that, for transferring the proceedings, on the basis of loss of confidence of the Presiding Officer or on the ground of bias, a mere apprehension would not be sufficient. There should be a factual foundation or reasonable basis for such apprehension. Though the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, has to be looked into from the angle of the petitioner, there should be sufficient materials to form the basis for such apprehension. The Court, before which the request is made, should act judicially to meet the ends of justice. 14.4. In VARADAN Vs. GOVINDASAMY (2009 (5) CTC 406), it has been held that the totality of the case, as well as the bona fides in filing the application for transfer are relevant. Observations made by the Presiding Officer, on the merits of the matter, after hearing the arguments, cannot be the grounds for transfer. 15. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dated 26.2.2010, made in Tr.O.P.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010. 16. 16. The learned Chief Judge, had rightly dismissed the Tr.O.P.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010, since, the apprehension of bias, alleged against the Presiding Officer of the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is ill founded. No specific reason has been mentioned by the petitioner to substantiate his allegations. Even if some observations are made by the Presiding Officer of a court of law, during the proceedings in a case, it cannot be said that the Presiding Officer is biased. The Presiding Officer cannot be expected to be a mute spectator during the proceedings in a matter being heard by him. If transfer of a case is ordered, based on a mere allegations by one of the parties to the case, it would be establishing a dangerous trend and it would be a handy tool in the hands of unscrupulous persons, who may attempt to interfere with the process of dispensation of justice. 17. Even though this Court has the power, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to order the transfer of a pending matter, from one Court to another, such a power would be invoked only in appropriate cases. However, in the present case this Court does not find it fit to invoke its power to order the transfer of the appeals, in R.C.A.Nos.1087 of 2005 and 1138 of 2005, from the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small causes, Chennai, to the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small causes, Chennai, as prayed for by the petitioner. As the civil revision petitions are devoid of merits, they stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos. 1 and 1 of 2010 are closed.