The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a transfer application. The High Court held that jurisdictional objections belong in the suit, not via transfer, and defendant businesses in Palakkad do not mandate transfer given Tirur jurisdiction.
Transfer application dismissed; transfer appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932
Tr.Appeal(C).No. 2 of 2010() ---------------------------(Tr.P(C) 286/2009 OF THIS COURT)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/3RD DEFENDANT
SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.KUNJAMMU HAJI, AGED 57 YEARS,
MERCHANT, CHERIYATH HOUSE,
THOZHUVANNUR AMSOM, DESOM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1& 2:
ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1
SRI.S.SREEDEV FOR R1
THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.N. KRISHNAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = TR APPEAL (C) 2 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = = DATED THIS, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011.
O R D E R
M.N. Krishnan, J.
This is an appeal preferred against the order in Tr.P.(C) 286 of 2009 of this Court. Tr.P.(c) 286 of 2009 was filed to transfer O.S. 275 of 2009 of Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirur to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Palakkad. The grounds suggested for transfer are that it will be convenient for the party to have the trial at Palakkad and really the cause of action for institution of the suit had arisen at Palakkad and not at Tirur and witnesses are also to be summoned within the limits of the Palakkad courts. It is opposed by the plaintiff in the suit. It is also submitted that the sons of the defendant are doing business at Palakkad and it will be more convenient for them to have the trial done at Palakkad. The learned Judge of this Court held that if the defendants have any case regarding the jurisdictional aspect it is a matter to be adjudicated in the suit and not by way of a transfer application. The Court did not find in favour of the transfer and dismissed
TR.A. (C) 2 OF 2010
2
the application. Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure a suit can be filed where the cause of action had arisen in part or in full and option is given to the plaintiff when it takes place within the jurisdiction of two courts. Further, the jurisdictional aspect is not a ground for transfer. Secondly, just because the defendants are conducting business in Palakkad it will not be a ground to transfer the case to Palakkad. They are permanent residents of Tirur and in such case, the plaintiff is entitled to sue where the defendant resides. Therefore, this Court had analyzed the matter in the correct perspective and dismissed the application for transfer. We do not find any merit to hold otherwise and therefore, the transfer appeal is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE)
P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)
knc/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a transfer of suit from Tirur to Palakkad was appropriate given the cause of action and defendant's residence.
Whether jurisdictional objections are a ground for transferring a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shahul Hameed
Kadalai Hussain
A.V. Sathar
P.V. Manaf
M.N. Krishnan
P.S. Gopinathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
