- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order in tr. O. P. No. 53 of 1992 on the file of District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
(2.) SHORT facts arc: The first respondent had filed the aforesaid O. P. No. 53 of 1992 before the District Judge, Kanyakumari, for transfer of the suit in O. S. No. 28 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, kuzhithurai to Sub Court , padmanabhapu-ram or Sub-Court, Nagercoil. That was opposed by the petitioner herein who was the first respondent before the court below. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge has passed an order, allowing the petition and directing transfer of the case to Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent before the court below has come forward with this civil revision petition. Mr. T. R. Rajagopalan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that transfer petition was liked in the court below on the ground that Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai observed that Sub-Judge, padmanabhapuram, who granted interim injunction had no jurisdiction to grant injunction and it was not proper on the part of the Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram to passsuch an order and that later also he made such an observation on 22. 4. 1992 and that the observation made by the Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai and the way in which he is hastening the matter had raised considerable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he may not get a fair hearing before that Judge and that the above are not justifiable grounds for transfer of the case' but yet after getting the remarks of the Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai and on relying upon the remarks made by the Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai that he has got no objection for transfer of the case, the learned District Judge had transferred the case and it is not correct. Per contra, Mr. Sree Kumaran Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai did not allow the petitioner'' s counsel to see the Commissioner'' s report and see the objections filed by the second respondent' but straightway pressed for enquiry and in the circumstances the order of the court below is correct. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. The learned District Judge has relied upon Laliiha v. State of Bihar , a. I. R. 1957 Pat. 198, where the Patna High Court has laid as follows: ' ' If there arc circumstances in a case which raise a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the person applying for transfer that he would not receive fair dealings at his trial or in other words, that he may not have a fair and impartial trial, and may not get justice in the court, where the suit is pending the case should be transferred. ' ' It is obvious that confidence in the court administering justice on the part of both the parties and of the public is a vital element, in the administration of justice. In the instant case, according to the petition, the subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai was on leave on 23. 3. 1992 and so the application for injunction was moved before the Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram, who was placed in charge of the Sub-Court, Kuzhithurai that on 23. 3. 1992 interim injunction was granted in I. A. No. 1 14 of 1992 by Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram and it was posted for return of notice to 24. 4. 1992 and that the Sub-Judge, padmanabhapuram has appointed a Commissioner on 23. 3. 1992 in I. A. No. 115 of 1992 to inspect the property and note the points. It is the petitioner'' s further case that on 21. 4. 1992 the Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai observed that sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram has no jurisdiction to grant injunction and later he reiterated the same observation on 22. 4. 1992 and insisted that petition will be heard positively. It is further stated that the Court observed that it is not going to wait for the Report of the Commissioner and it is going to hear and dispose of the application on 24. 4. 1992. It is further stated that on 24. 4. 1992, the second respondent filed counter and the Commissioner also filed report and advocate for the petitioner prayed time to see the Commissioner' ' s report and to file objections, if any and also to see the allegations stated in the counter filed by the second respondent, but the court insisted the advocate to argue the case and the case was adjourned to 28. 4. 1992 and in the circumstances transfer may be made. Even on the allegations made in the petition, I find that there is no valid ground for transfer of the case. When a party had obtained an order of interim injunction and the other party insisted that the application may be heard, the court should generally insist that application would be heard. A party in whose favour there is an injunction should be ready to argue the case, particularly when the other side has already filed counter and was ready. It is seen from the petition that counter was filed on 24. 4. 1992 and Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai had adjourned it to 28. 4. 1992 for arguments, though initially the learned Judge insisted the counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter. Simply because the Judge was anxious to dispose of the matter quickly, nothing can be imputed against him. On that score, a transfer cannot be made. The learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that in the counter affidavit filed in C. M. P. No. 1183 of 1992, in this Court the respondent has pointed out that on 16. 10. 1992 several wall posters appeared in Tamil and Malayalam in almost all the streets of Kuzhithurai in which the sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai was described as dishonest and corrupt and the said allegation was brought to the notice of this High Court also and that the Bar association, Kuzhithurai had also passed a resolution unanimously on 23. 11. 1992 requesting the High Court to enquire into the charges of corruption against the very same presiding officer and in those circumstances, he has reasonable apprehension to believe that he will not get justice if his case is heard by the Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai. These are matters on which transfer was not sought for in the court below and I do not propose to go into those allegations which cannot be gone into in these proceedings and there is no material before this Court to consider this way or that way.
(3.) THE learned District Judge has referred to the remarks submitted by the Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai, in which he has refuted the allegation that he made observation as alleged by the petitioner before him and has finally stated that he has got no objection in transferring the case and taking that factor also into account he had transferred the case. Neither that can be a premises for transfer of a case from one court to another court. Thus, none of the grounds on which transfer of the case was made is justifiable and can be made and so the order of the court below directing transfer of the case has to be set aside. In view of the above, this civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Judge, Nagercoil in tr. O. P. No. 53 of 1992 and consequently the Tr. O. P. No. 53 of 1992 shall stand dismissed. .;