Madras High Court
Mekala vs N.Jayalakshmi on 23 March, 2023
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No.789 of 2023
and
C.M.P. No. 6067 of 2023
Mekala ... Petitioner
Versus
1. N.Jayalakshmi,
2. Pattammal
3. Chandrasekar
4. Selvadurai
5. Lokeshwari
6. C.B.Muralikrishnan
7. The Purasawakkam Permanent
Fund Limited,
Vallalar Street,
Purasawakkam, Chennai-84. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to set aside the Order passed by the Principal City Civil
Judge, in Transfer Petition No.133 of 2022 dated 15.02.2023 pending on the
file of the XIX Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Vivekanand
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed by the trial court in
Tr.Petition No.133 of 2022 dated 15.02.2023 pending on the file of XIX
Addl. City Civil Judge, Chennai, the 5th defendant preferred this Civil
Revision Petition.
2. The contention of Revision Petitioner is that when the matter was
posted for arguments on 14.07.2022 before the trial court, they have
completed part of the arguments and remaining part of arguments, the trial
judge is not inclined to grant time to hear further arguments. However, the
arguments of defendants 5 and 6 was closed and the matter was adjourned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
for other defendants arguments. Subsequently, the trial judge has hurriedly
attempted to dispose the case. Hence, she has filed a petition to transfer the
matter in Tr.Petn. No.133 of 2022 to other court as the trial Judge was
influenced and biased. That application was strongly objected by the
plaintiff stating that from the year of 2007 onwards, she is not able to get
the property in possession and even though she is a purchaser of the
property, she is not able to complete the trial due to the alleged tactics of
this defendant. This defendant's husband being an advocate, who is arrayed
as 6th defendant in the suit, had caused all sorts of hindrance in conducting
the trial proceedings. Hence, the plaintiff raised objection. Even though
sufficient opportunity was given by the trial judge to the defendants, they
are dragging on the proceedings, so, the transfer petition has been filed.
Considering both side submissions, the trial judge held that the reasons
assigned by them to transfer the case to other court is unjustifiable one and
only to protract the proceedings, she come forward with the transfer petition
with insufficient and unacceptable reasons and accordingly, dismissed the
application. Challenging the said findings, the present Civil Revision
Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
3. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that the
trial judge without giving sufficient opportunity, has hurriedly attempted to
close the arguments and dispose the case and also acted in a biased manner.
Hence, she is not inclined to complete the trial proceedings before the trial
judge though she raised proper reasons before him. Hence, she prayed to set
aside the order.
4. The learned counsel for 1st respondent/plaintiff raised objection
stating that sufficient opportunity was given to this defendant and evidence
was closed much earlier in the year of 2017. However, the husband of this
petitioner is a practicing advocate, who is arrayed as 6 th defendant in the suit
causing all sorts of hindrance in proceeding with the trial and she is not able
to proceed with the trial proceedings from the year of 2007 onwards.
Furthermore, the learned judge has not made any comment with regard to
the tactics of defendants 5 and 6 in the trial proceedings. Inspite of that, all
these allegations levelled against the trial judge in order to transfer the
matter to some other court only with an intention to drag on the
proceedings. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would
submit that in open court, the learned Presiding Officer declared that she is
not having a case. Hence, she was very much affected and so, she is not
inclined to proceed the case before that court and prayed to transfer the
matter to some other court.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. On seeing the entire records, it would clearly reveals that on
22.06.2022 arguments of defendants 5 and 6 heard in part and posted the
matter for completing their arguments on 14.07.2022. On that day itself,
arguments were heard in full and they have filed their written statement,
however, when the 2nd and 3rd respondent called absent, the trial court closed
their arguments and the matter was posted for judgment on 26.07.2022. On
that day, in order to reopen the case, the 5th defendant has filed an
application in I.A.No.3 of 2023 to reopen the case for arguments and the
same was allowed by the trial court by giving opportunity to 5th defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
In that application also, the Revision Petitioner not disclosed anywhere
about the alleged comments made by the Presiding Officer, but, on the other
hand, he wanted to submit his arguments. Accordingly, the trial judge has
rightly allowed the application by giving one more opportunity to reopen
the case. Thereafter, the matter was posted for further arguments on the side
of Revision Petitioner. However, instead of arguing the matter before the
trial court, he wanted to transfer the matter to some other court making
allegation against the Presiding Officer. Merely because the Presiding
Officer has made any such allegation, the Revision Petitioner ought to have
disclosed the fact anywhere in the application filed in I.A.No.3 of 2022, but
no such allegation was made in that application. So, the conduct of
Revision Petitioner clearly shows that only to drag on the proceedings, the
application was filed and there is no allegation against the presiding officer.
The trial judge discharged his duty, however on making allegation against
the Presiding Officer would cause embarassment to proceed the matter,
which could not be encouraged. However, on seeing the conduct of
Revision Petitioner, the reason assigned by him is not acceptable by this
court and if the proceedings are allowed to continue before the concerned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
trial judge, it would cause hindrance to the trial judge. Hence, this Court is
inclined to transfer the matter to XVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Chennai and
learned XVII Addl. City Civil Judge is directed to dispose the matter within
a period of eight weeks without giving unnecessary adjournments from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. If at all, the Revision Petitioner wanted
to make arguments either orally or by written, he is permitted to submit his
arguments within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of
this order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.03.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
rpp
To
1. XIX Addl. City Civil Judge,
Chennai.
2. XVII Addl. City Civil Judge,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.R.P. No.789 of 2023
23.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
