Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3704 (MAD)

M. Uma v. Ramu @ Ramalingam

2013-10-25

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment : The respondents herein / plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.122 of 2007 against the petitioner herein for partition and separate position on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Madurai. The Defendant also filed a written statement and resisted the said suit. At this juncture, the defendant has filed the above Transfer petition to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Madurai and transfer the same to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. The highly competent counsel for the petitioner submits that the above suit posted for defendant's evidence on 06.08.2013, but later on in the absence of the defendant's counsel, it was changed to 13.08.2013 at the request of the plaintiffs counsel. On 13.08.2013 during the course of cross examination of DW3, the counsel for the plaintiffs unnecessarily developed a quarrel with the junior counsel by finding fault for his standing near the witness box and the Hon'ble Presiding Officer in a harsh tone without any reason directed the defendant counsel to act according to the dictates of the counsel for the plaintiffs for which the defendant counsel refused. Hence, the learned Presiding Officer adjourned the case stating that the defendant's counsel is not cooperating and also not respecting the dignity of the Court. 3. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Judge without given sufficient opportunity closed the defendant's side evidence on 10.09.2013. Therefore, the very competent counsel is seeking transfer from this Court to some other Court since his client is not willing to proceed with the case before the same Presiding Office. 4. The highly competent counsel for the respondent submits that on 03.08.2012 proof affidavit has been filed by PW1 and eleven documents were marked. Thereafter, due to the non-cooperation of the plaintiffs' side the matter has been adjourned from time to time. After sufficient time granted to the plaintiffs, they did not cooperate with the Court for speedy trial. On 29.07.2013 proof affidavit has been filed by the 3rd defendant, then the case has been posted for cross examination of PW3. The plaintiffs side counsel did not cross examined DW3 on five occasions, thereafter the learned Judge has closed the evidence of DW3. On 29.07.2013 proof affidavit has been filed by the 3rd defendant, then the case has been posted for cross examination of PW3. The plaintiffs side counsel did not cross examined DW3 on five occasions, thereafter the learned Judge has closed the evidence of DW3. The very competent counsel further submits that the junior counsel of the plaintiffs is being given a body action signal to the plaintiffs in the open Court. Further, the junior counsel of the plaintiffs has not behaved in a proper manner at the open Court which was obvious. The learned Judge dealing with the case in a fair and proper manner and without basis. Now, the said case is in a partly heard stage, therefore, the Transfer Petition is not maintainable, since there is insufficient force to allow it. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above Transfer Petition. 5. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the affidavit filed by the petitioner and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, this Court absolutely does not find any lapse on the side of the learned Presiding Officer of the Court. However, the petitioner is making some allegations even though without the support of any substantial evidence, in order to maintain the confidence of the petitioner at the judiciary, this Court is inclined to allow the above Transfer Petition. Therefore, this Court directs the learned IV District Judge, Madurai, to transfer all the case papers relating to O.S.No.122 of 2007 forthwith to the III Additional District Judge, Madurai. After receipt of the entire case bundles the III Additional District Judge, Madurai shall dispose the case in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on the top most priority basis after giving necessary notice to the parties or counsels on merits without influencing the discussions of this Court. 6. In the result, the above Transfer Petition is allowed and the suit in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Madurai is transferred to the III Additional District Judge, Madurai. This order has to be carried out at the earliest. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.