A transfer appeal challenging the Single Judge's order transferring a divorce suit from Family Court, Pathanamthitta to Kannur. The Division Bench relied on established principles of transfer and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed; the transfer order of O.P.No.82 of 2024 to Family Court, Kannur was upheld.
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 ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946
TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 7 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN Tr.P(C)NO.209 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN Tr.P.(C)/PETITIONER:
IDICULA SAMUEL
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O P.E.SAMUEL, PALLIYENATHU HOUSE, KAIPATHUR.
P.O. VALLICODE VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER SUMI. P SAMUEL, W/O SURAJ KUMAR.
M.R. PALLIYENATHUR VALLICODE, KAIPATTUR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689648
BY ADV C.A. RAJEEV
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN Tr.P(C)/RESPONDENT:
ANU GEROGE
D/O GEORGE, MANAKUZHIYIL, CHAPPARAPADAVU, PRAPOYIL
P.O. KANNUR, PIN - 670511
R BY ADV.SRI.M.ANUROOP
THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Tr.Appeal (C)No.7 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant is the respondent in Transfer Petition (C)No.209 of 2024, a petition filed by the respondent hereinwife, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of O.S.No.82 of 2024 pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to the Family Court, Kannur. The appellant filed O.S.No.82 of 2024 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta seeking a decree of divorce. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 11.04.2024 in Tr.P.(C)No.209 of 2024, ordered transfer of O.P.No.82 2024 to Family Court, Kannur, for trial and disposal. In that order, the learned Single Judge noticed that the wife is residing at Kannur. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2024, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
3
Tr.Appeal (C)No.7 of 2024
Construction Co. [(1979) 4 SCC 358] , the Apex Court held that the principle governing the general power of transfer and withdrawal under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the court should not lightly change the forum and compel the plaintiff go to another court, with consequent increase in inconvenience and expense of prosecuting the suit. A mere balance of convenience in favour of proceedings in another court, albeit a material consideration, may not always be a sure criterion justifying transfer. As compared with Section 24, the power of transfer of civil proceedings to another court, conferred on the Apex Court under Section 25 is far wider and so the amplitude of expression 'expedient in the interest of justice' which furnishes a general guideline for the exercise of the power. Whether it is expedient or desirable in the interest of justice to transfer a proceedings to another court, is a question which depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
4
Tr.Appeal (C)No.7 of 2024
7. In Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education
Trust [(2008) 3 SCC 659] the Apex Court held that, Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a High Court or a District Court to transfer inter alia any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it or in any court subordinate to it to any other court for trial and disposal. The said provision confers comprehensive power on the court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings ‘at any stage’ either on an application by any party or suo motu. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any castiron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be
gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. On a reading of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the
5
Tr.Appeal (C)No.7 of 2024
suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; 'interest of justice' demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc.
6
Tr.Appeal (C)No.7 of 2024
Bahrain, who is prosecuting O.P.No.82 of 2024 through a power of attorney, which is the one executed on 05.04.2024 at Pathanamthitta. A copy of that power of attorney is incorporated in the judges’ papers of this appeal.
In the result, this appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
AV/4/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could interfere with the Single Judge's order transferring the suit to Kannur.
Whether the wife's residence at Kannur justified the transfer away from Pathanamthitta.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co.Explained¶26
(1979) 4 SCC 358 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education TrustExplained¶30
(2008) 3 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
Balan v. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom TrustRelied on¶36
[2005 (4) KLT 865]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
IDICULA SAMUEL
ANU GEROGE
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
HARISANKAR V. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court