Division Bench dismissed transfer appeals (Nos. 3 and 4 of 2014) filed by siblings challenging the learned single judge's refusal to transfer two suits under Section 24 of the CPC, finding no jurisdictional error.
Appeals dismissed in limine without detailed reasons being recorded.
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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2015/12TH SRAVANA, 1937
Tr.Appeal(C).No. 3 of 2014 () IN Tr.P(C).499/2013 --------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Tr.P(C) 499/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 01-04-2014
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JOHN J.ILLICKAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI. JACOB J. ILLICKAN, GRACY BUNGALOW PARATHODU, KANJIRAPPALLY NOW RESIDING AT ILLICKAL HOUSE, S.A ROAD PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682036
BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SHASHI KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------
1. SMT.SHEELA PHILIP,, AGED 59 YEARS W/O PHILIP MATHEW, THAZHEKKATTU HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O ERNAKULAM 682024
2. RABECA, W/O ABRAHAM KOSHI, PEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, AZHOOR KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA 689645
3. SUJA SAJAN W/O SAJAN ABRAHAM, THADATHIL, KANJIKUZHI MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM 686001
BY SRI. A.ANTONY
THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2015 ALONG WITH Tr.APPEAL.03/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & SUNIL THOMAS, JJ.
==============================
Tr.Appeal.Nos.3 and 4 of 2014
==============================
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2
Tr.Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2014
Kanjirappally. But, that by itself is no ground for transfer of these cases; that too, by the Division Bench, by entertaining an intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act, when we are satisfied that the learned single Judge has appropriately appreciated the entire factual matters and has exercised discretion under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and refused to order transfer. The impugned order of the learned single Judge gives clear and mighty reasons for not ordering transfer of cases. We find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the learned single Judge. These appeals, therefore, fail.
In the result, these appeals are dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS Judge
Sbna
True Copy /
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned single judge's refusal to transfer suits under Section 24 of the C.P.C. can be disturbed under Section 5 of the High Court Act.
Whether there is legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in refusing transfer of suits to avoid convenience of litigants.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
John J. Illickan
Sheela Philip
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
