Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2552 (MAD)

Lakshmi v. E. S. Appusamy

2018-08-20

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
ORDER : 1. All the abovesaid Transfer CMPs have been laid to withdraw O.S.Nos.65 of 2010, 132 of 2010 and 133 of 2010 respectively pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Bhavani and transfer the same to any other Court in Salem or Namakkal District for the reasons stated in the petitions. 2. As could be seen from the averments contained in the affidavits appended to the petitions, it is found that O.S.No.78 of 2009 originally filed by the petitioners 1 & 2 and pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani, was subsequently transferred to the Sub-Court, Bhavani and re-numbered as 132 of 2010. The abovesaid suit is found to have been laid against the first respondent herein and the other defendants. It is further seen that the first respondent herein had preferred the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2010 against the petitioners and others for the relief of permanent injunction and the same is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Bhavani. It is also seen that O.S.No.133 of 2010 has been laid by the respondents 1 & 6 herein against the petitioners and others for the relief of permanent injunction and the same is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Bhavani. It is also noted that the 6th respondent has been subsequently transposed as the 7th defendant in the suit. 3. On the basis of the joint memo filed by the parties concerned, the above three suits were taken up for trial jointly and the suit laid by the petitioners being one for declaration and permanent injunction, it is found that on that footing, the evidence had come to be recorded in the above suit laid by the petitioners in O.S.No.132 of 2010. 4. 4. According to the petitioners, the first respondent is a practising advocate at Bhavani and also the office bearer in the various associations and as such, in that capacity, it is alleged that he is appearing in the Court in the advocate dress and instructing his advocate to put questions to the first petitioner when she was in the box and despite the objections put forth by the petitioner's counsel to the presiding officer, the presiding officer had not entertained the same and further, it is also alleged that the first respondent had been instructing the Court to record the evidence at his whims and fancies in order to defeat the petitioners' case and accordingly, alleging that the presiding officer had refused to record the evidence tendered by the first petitioner made during the course of cross examination, which are against the first respondent and on that reasnonigs, they have come forward with the present petitions seeking transfer of the above suits to one of the competent Courts either at Salem or Namakkal District. 5. The first respondent has entered appearance through his advocate and he has denied the allegations putforth against him in the petitions by the petitioners in seeking the transfer of the abovesaid suits. 6. Even as per the case of the petitioners, the first respondent is a practising advocate at Bhavani. In such view of the matter, it is found that the first respondent is entitled to appear in the said Court in his advocate's attire, in connection with the brief entrusted to by him by his clients. In such view of the matter, it has not been explained by the petitioners as to how the presiding officer would be able to curtail or prevent the first respondent from appearing in the Court in the Advocate's garb in respect of the cases entrusted to him on behalf of his clients. Accordingly, when the first respondent is the first defendant in the abovesaid proceedings and is a party to the abovesaid proceedings, accordingly, it is seen that he being represented by his counsel in the matters would have instructed his counsel to putforth the relevant questions to the first petitioner, while she was in the box in support of his case. Accordingly, when the first respondent is the first defendant in the abovesaid proceedings and is a party to the abovesaid proceedings, accordingly, it is seen that he being represented by his counsel in the matters would have instructed his counsel to putforth the relevant questions to the first petitioner, while she was in the box in support of his case. In such view of the matter, merely because, at a particular point of time, the first respondent was in the advocate's uniform and instructed his counsel as regards the questions to be put to the first petitioner during the course of cross examination, that by itself, would not in any manner be a ground, as such, to seek the transfer of the abovesaid suits to some other Court as putforth by the petitioners. 7. With reference to the allegations putforth by the petitioners that the first respondent is misusing his position as an advocate and also his role in the association and thereby, influencing the Court to record the evidence at his whims and fancies to suit his case, in connection with the same, however there is, absolutely, no material worth acceptance projected by the petitioners. If really, there had been any /some favouritism shown by the presiding officer to the first respondent during the course of the trial, evidence or materials worth acceptance pointing to the same would have been placed on record by the petitioners to substantiate the same. However, other than barely alleging that the first respondent is influencing the Court to record the evidence at his likes and dislikes, to buttress the said point, the petitioners have not placed any material and in such view of the matter, this Court is not ready to accept the abovesaid reasons, particularly, casting aspersions on the presiding officer without any basis. If these type of reasons are to be accepted without any foundation, no case could be conducted by the Courts below freely in accordance with law. Thus, in my considered opinion, these unsubstantiated allegations made against the Courts below are done only with a view to cause fear or prejudice to the Court or to wield a threat to the Court to act to the tunes of the petitioners one way or the other. Thus, in my considered opinion, these unsubstantiated allegations made against the Courts below are done only with a view to cause fear or prejudice to the Court or to wield a threat to the Court to act to the tunes of the petitioners one way or the other. If really the first respondent had exercised any undue influence on the presiding officer, with reference to the said conduct of the Officer as projected by the petitioners, the petitioners should have come forward with necessary materials in support of the same. But for the mere allegations, there is no proof whatsoever placed for accepting the slander putforth against the officer. The counsel appearing for the first respondent had denied the allegations putforth against his client, particularly, that he had been misusing his position as an advocate or the position of Officer bearer in the associations for influencing the presiding officer to act to his dictation. When these facts had been brought to the attention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners, he submitted that he would withdraw the allegations putforth against the officer, but, however, till date, no affidavit or memo has been filed with reference to the same seeking apology by the petitioners' counsel. 8. All the more, the petitioners' counsel would still contend that considering the fact the first respondent is an advocate practising at Bhavani, in the interest of justice, the Court should accept the transfer requests of the petitioners and transfer the cases abovestated to some other Court at least in Erode District preferably at Erode. However, when the reasons adduced by the petitioners for effecting the transfer of the abovesaid suits to some other Court are not made out and merely because, the first respondent is an advocate, that alone cannot be a ground to transfer the cases to some other Court and when there is no material placed by the petitioners to hold safely that the presiding officer of the Court had acted prejudiously to the interest of the petitioners or acted in deference to the interest of the first respondent, in such view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the transfer requests put forth by the petitioners. 9. 9. If this type of request is to be entertained without any rhyme or reason, the Courts below would always be at the mercy of he parties/ counsel and there would be no cordial atmosphere in the conduct of the proceedings before the Courts below and every litigant would be making some allegations against the presiding officer one way or the other and thereby, seek the transfer of the proceeding from one Court to another without any basis. Resultantly, the same would only be defeating the ends of justice and in such view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the petitions. For the reasons aforestated, the transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP Nos.6870 to 6872 of 2017 are also dismissed.