Costs can be reversed if the petitioner's subsequent conduct indicates cooperation and a change from previously problematic behaviors.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner had filed O.P.(T.P) No.152 of 2020 before the District Court, Kollam seeking transfer of the suit, O.S.No.6 of 2016 from the Sub Court, Punalur to any other court. By the impugned order, not only did the District Court dismiss the Transfer Petition, but imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the imposition of cost on him, in spite of having moved a memo not pressing the transfer petition. The reasons that prompted the learned District Judge to impose cost, discernible from Paragraph 5 and 6 of the order, are as under;

“5. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent invited the attention of this court to Para 8 to 10 of Tr.P.(C) No. 730/2018.

“8. Having considered the above facts, I am inclined to dismiss the transfer petitions holding that the petitioner is liable to be mulcted with cost for raising false and reckless allegations against the judicial officer. His conduct is liable to be deprecated. He is directed to co-operate with the trial and to maintain the discipline and decorum of court.

9. Accordingly, each of the transfer petition is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, payable by him to the KELSA, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. If the total costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) is not remitted with KELSA within one month from today and receipt is not produced before this court. KELSA will be entitled to proceed against the petitioner to recover the amount.

10. The court below shall proceed with trial in the meanwhile. In case the petitioner is not co-operating with the trial, the court below will be free to regulate its own proceedings in accordance with law. The court shall continue to ensure that the court proceedings progress smoothly and to continue to ensure that justice should not only be done, but seen to be done.”

6. The learned Counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the modus operandi of the petitioner is to file false, unnecessary, vexatious allegations against the Judicial Officer so as to delay and defeat the ends of justice. Even though, the Hon’ble High Court in another petition filed by the petitioner herein deprecated such practice and mulcted him with costs, the petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 76 years, is continuing such practice so as to delay and defeat the ends of justice”.

2. It is true that the repeated filing of unmerited transfer petitions ought to be dealt with strictly. At the same time, the fact that the petitioner had not pressed his transfer petition, though belatedly, should have dissuaded the court from imposing costs.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has given strict instruction to his client to co-operate with the court. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that his clients are more interested in getting the suit disposed of at the earliest, rather than bickering on the cost.

Being so, the impugned order, to the extent it imposes cost on the petitioner, is set aside. The trial court shall strictly abide by the earlier direction to dispose of the suit in a time bound manner.

The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.