Partly allowed

G.Veeraperumal, v. M.Ponnusamy

Madras HC18 Jul 2013TR CMP(MD)/223/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court addressed three Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions seeking to shift election petitions from the Principal District Court to the First Additional District Court in Tuticorin. The court considered submissions on similar issues decided in other connected matters, acknowledging prejudice. Consequently, the petition was decided to grant transfer for fairer

What did the court decide?

Election O.P.Nos. 427, 375, and 390 of 2011 were withdrawn from the Principal District Court, Tuticorin, and transferred to the First Additional District Court, Tuticorin, for further proceedings.

G.Veeraperumal, Vs M.Ponnusamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.07.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH TR.CMP(MD)Nos.223 to 225 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1&1 of 2013 TR.CMP(MD)No.223 of 2013 G.Veeraperumal .. Petitioner / Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

1.M.Ponnusamy 2.The Returning Officer, (Village Panchayat President / Council Members), Block Development Officer, Pudur Panchayat Uniion, Pudur,Tuticorin District.

¶5

2.The Chef Returning Officer, The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Korampallam, Tuticorin. .. Respondents / Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw the Election O.P.No.427 of 2011 on the file of Tuticorin Principal District Court and transfer to some other equivalent Jurisdiction Court for further proceedings.

¶7

TR.CMP(MD)No.224 of 2013 R.Rajagopal .. Petitioner / Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.V.Arivalagan 2.The Returning Officer, (Village Panchayat President / Council Members), Block Development Officer, Pudur Panchayat Uniion, Pudur,Tuticorin District.

¶10

2.The Chef Returning Officer, The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Korampallam, Tuticorin. .. Respondents / Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw the Election O.P.No.375 of 2011 on the file of Tuticorin Principal District Court and transfer to some https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other equivalent Jurisdiction Court for further proceedings.

¶12

¶13

TR.CMP(MD)No.225 of 2013 P.Solaichamy

¶14

.. Petitioner / Petitioner

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.C.Muthusamy

¶17

2.The Returning Officer, (Village Panchayat President / Council Members),

¶18

Block Development Officer, Pudur Panchayat Uniion,

¶19

Pudur, Tuticorin District.

¶20

2.The Chef Returning Officer, The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Korampallam,Tuticorin.

¶21

.. Respondents / Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw the Election O.P.No.390 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Court and transfer to some other equivalent Jurisdiction Court for further proceedings.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.F.Eugene (in all Tr.CMps) For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Subramanian in Tr.CMP.223/2013

¶24

For Respondent-1 : No Appearance in Tr.CMP.224/2013 and Tr.CMP.225/13

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandam (R2 and R3) (Spl.Govt.Pleader) in all Tr.CMPs.

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

These Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to withdraw the Election O.P.Nos.427, 375 and 390 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin and transfer the same to some other equivalent Jurisdiction Court for further proceedings.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, has already decided the same issue in other connected matters and therefore, if these petitions are tried by the same Judicial Officer, the same view will be taken and it will be prejudice to the petitioners and therefore, prayed to withdraw the Election O.P.Nos.427, 375 and 390 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin and transfer the same to some other equivalent Jurisdiction Court for further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings.

¶29

¶30

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶31

respondent 2 and 3 filed a counter and also admitted that the issue has already decided in two other cases and the same view is to be taken in this case also. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that some facts are differs in these cases from the earlier cases and therefore, objected to transfer.

¶32

From both sides submissions, it is clear that the point for consideration in these cases are similar to earlier cases and in the above circumstances, these cases may be transferred to some other Court in the same place in the interest of natural justice, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶33

In the result, all the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed and the the Election O.P.Nos.427, 375 and 390 of 2011 are withdrawn on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin and transferred to the file of First Additional District Court, Tuticorin for further proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,TUTICORIN.

¶40

THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,TUTICORIN.

¶41

THE RETURNING OFFICER,

¶42

(VILLAGE PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT/COUNCIL MEMBERS), BLOCK DEVELOPMENTOFFICER, PUDUR PANCHAYAT UNION, PUDUR, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.

¶43

THE CHIEF RETURNING OFFICER, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, KORAMPALLAM, TUTICORIN.

¶44

+3cc's to M/S.F.X.Eugene, Advocate, Sr.No.36384 to 36386

¶45

+1cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, Sr.No.36662

¶46

+one cc to Special Government Pleader Sr.No. 36727

¶47

TR.CMP(MD)Nos.223 to 225 of 2013 18.07.2013

¶48

mpk

¶49

SMA/29/07/2013/10C/3P -IT

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Veeraperumal, v. M.Ponnusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Veeraperumal, v. M.Ponnusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs S.Jeyarani

Ghayathri Vs Arivazhagan

The Managing Director Vs v.Ramasamy

S.Ananthalakshmi (Age 33) Vs R.Narayanan (Age 38)

T. Kamatchi Suganya Vs S. Sankaranayaranan

K.M.Jeyakodi @ Muthukrishnan Vs S.Jebamalai