The High Court of Kerala allocated a review petition challenging an order transferring a family dispute to another court. The court rejected the review prayers, noting that consolidation of related proceedings outweighed minor jurisdictional or procedural objections.
Review petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1939
RP.No. 230 of 2018
JUDGMENT IN Tr.P(C) 11/2018 DATED 02-02-2018.
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN THE TPC:
AJI KUMAR. P.J, S/O. PURUSHOTTAMAN PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS, AJI MANDIRAM, THURAVUR SOUTH, KADAMPANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND FATHER PURUSHOTTAMAN PILLAI, AJI MANDIRAM, THURAVUR SOUTH, KADAMPANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 552.
BY ADV.SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE TPC:
DIVYA. C, D/O. CHANDRAMATHY AMMA, AGED 30 YEARS, KALEEKAL VEEDU, KARIMPINPUZHA MURI, PAVITHRESHWARAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND FATHER SRI. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, S/O. KUNJAN PILLAI, KALEEKAL VEEDU, KARIMPINPUZHA MURI, PAVITHRESHWARAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM - 691 507.
BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
30.04.2018.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------R.P.No.230 of 2018 in Tr.P.(C) No.11 of 2018
----------------------------------------Dated this the 21st day of March, 2018
O R D E R
The prayer in this petition is to review and recall the impugned judgment dated 2.2.2018 rendered by this Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.11 of 2018 and to rehear the said Transfer Petition (Civil).
R.P.No.230/18 in Tr.P.(C)No.11/18
: :2::
appearance and had not thus filed counter affidavit to the averments and prayers raised in the said Transfer Petition. The excuse now projected by the review petitioner/respondent in the Tr.P.(C) is that though he was served with notice in the Tr.P.(C), he could not produce the original of the power of attorney for filing vakalath as the said original was with the Family Court, etc.
R.P.No.230/18 in Tr.P.(C)No.11/18
: :3::
Kottarakkara, seeking recovery of gold and money. The wife had contended that she finds it extremely difficult to conduct the litigative proceedings in Annexure-A4 O.P.No.997 of 2017 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, and that as three out of the four litigative proceedings are already pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, and more particularly as one out of the said three litigative proceedings have been initiated by none other than the husband, which is pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, it is only in the interest of both sides that all the four litigative proceedings are conducted before the same Family Court. Moreover, the husband has not moved any petition seeking transfer of Annexure-A3 O.P.No.1117 of 2017 from the Family Court, Kottarakkara, to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta and he has no complaints in the conduct of the said litigative proceedings before the Family Court, Kottarakkara.
R.P.No.230/18 in Tr.P.(C)No.11/18
: :4::
relation to declaration of title and possession of her property and the said property is situated within the territorial limits of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. As regards the first objection, it is to be noted that the father of the Transfer Petitioner/wife, who happens to be the power of attorney holder, is more than 60 years and irrespective as to whether the wife is working abroad, it cannot be said that the inconvenience and difficulties faced by the power of attorney who is a senior citizen and who is also the father of the litigant, should be totally brushed aside. For that matter it is admitted before this Court that even the petitioner is now working abroad and therefore, as far as he is concerned it does not make much difference as to whether the litigative proceedings are conducted before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, or before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. True that the review petitioner is represented through his father who is the power of attorney holder and his father is also aged. But this Court has already issued directions that the Family Court should favourably consider the applications for personal exemption subject to the condition that the parties should appear before the Family Court at the time of counselling, mediation process, etc. and as and when specifically so directed by the court below and provided that the parties are represented through the Advocates concerned. Therefore, the said objection raised by the review petitioner is not really tenable which would warrant the reviewing and recalling of the
R.P.No.230/18 in Tr.P.(C)No.11/18
: :5::
impugned judgment. As regards the objection raised by the review petitioner that the subject matter of the property is situated within the territorial limits of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, and that therefore, the Family Court, Kottarakkara, does not have territorial jurisdiction, etc., it is now too well established that the powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of cases could be exercised even for transferring cases from a court having territorial jurisdiction to a court which is not having territorial jurisdiction, provided the latter transferree court is having the competence to try the subject matter of the suit and provided all the other requisite parameters for warranting transfer is duly satisfied. Therefore, the said objection raised by the review petitioner based on the territorial jurisdiction aspect is also not really germane and relevant and therefore, it is not a ground for seeking for the invocation of the extraordinary remedy of review.
R.P.No.230/18 in Tr.P.(C)No.11/18
: :6::
town is about 27 kms. This aspect is confirmed by Sri.B.Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the R.P./Transfer Petitioner. Therefore, the present impugned direction to transfer the case from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to the Family Court, Kottarakkara, would be equally beneficial to the petitioner as well inasmuch as it will be more convenient for him as well as for his father to conduct the case as it is more closer to their residence. Moreover three out of the four litigative proceedings are now pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, out of which one has been initiated by none other than the husband review petitioner/husband and therefore, all the disputing parties will be benefited if all the litigative proceedings are conducted before the same Family Court as if it would give way for better litigative management with the conduct of the cases. Moreover, Sri.B.Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the R.P./Transfer Petitioner, would submit that the Transfer Petitioner has been advised to move an application before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, for having joint/consolidated trial of all the four cases. That is a matter which is to be considered by the Family Court, Kottarakkara, subject to the parameters for the conduct of joint trial and if the option of joint trial of all or any of the cases is also feasible in the facts of this case, then that is also certainly an aspect which would justify the directions in the impugned judgment which in turn would benefit not only
R.P.No.230/18 in Tr.P.(C)No.11/18
: :7::
the Transfer Petitioner, but also the review petitioner. Therefore, the present attempt made by the respondent in the Tr.P.(C) by instituting this review petition appears to be misconceived. Moreover, none of the grounds for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of review has been made out in this case.
With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned review petition will stand dismissed.
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
csl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of a matter to a different Family Court for consolidation of related proceedings constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review.
Whether territorial jurisdiction objections bar a transfer ordered under Section 24 of the CPC for reasons of convenience and consolidated trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aji Kumar. P.J
Divya. C
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
