Allowed

Chinnammal, W/O.Kandasamy v. Lakshmi, W/O.Jayaraj

Madras HC6 Feb 2015CRP/487/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two civil revision petitions challenging orders dismissing transfer petitions. The orders were set aside as the learned District Judge had dismissed the petitions without numbering them and without hearing the petitioners, violating the principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 21.01.2015 setting aside transfer petitions were set aside. District Judge directed to dispose of transfer applications after hearing parties.

Chinnammal, W/O.Kandasamy Vs Lakshmi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD) No.487 of 2015 and C,R.P.(PD).No.488 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

¶9

Chinnammal

¶10

Thangammal

¶11

Vasu

¶12

Rathinammal

¶13

Bhuvaneswari

¶14

Usha Rani

¶15

... Petitioners in both CRPs Vs.

¶16

Lakshmi .. 1^st respondent in C.R.P. No.487/2015/Respondent in CRP No.488/2015

¶17

Vediappan (Died) Ramalingam (Died)

¶18

Irusa Gounder

¶19

Andi Gounder

¶20

Ranganathan

¶21

Muthu Nadar,

¶22

Sampath

¶23

Arumuga Mudaliar

¶24

Murugan

¶25

Arumugam Chettiar

¶26

10.Kandasamy

¶27

11.Richardson & Crude's Ltd.,

¶28

12.Rajammal

¶29

13.K.Jeyaraj

¶30

¶31

14.K.Ponnusamy 15.K.Krishnan 16.K.Arjunan 17.K.Balusamy 18.K.Gopal 19.K.Palaniammal 20.K.Amsa 21.R.Jothi 22.R.Gokul 23.R.Sinduja

¶32

... Respondents 2 to 23 in C.R.P. No.487/2015

¶33

PRAYER in CRP 487 of 2015: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 21.01.2015 rejecting the application in unnumbered Transfer O.P.No. Of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem in REA No.284 of 1999 in REP No.62 of 1998 in O.S.No.421 of 1984 on the file of I Additional Sub Judge, Salem.

¶34

PRAYER in CRP 488 of 2015: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 21.01.2015 rejecting the application in Unnumbered Transfer O.P.No. Of 2015 in O.S.No.129 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Sub Judge, Salem.

¶35

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Jagadeesan For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman for Ms.P.Veena

¶36

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶37

These civil revision petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 21.01.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Salem, in unnumbered

¶38

¶39

Transfer Original Petition Nos. nil of 2015 filed in REA No.284 of 1999 in REP No. 62 of 1998 in O.S.No.421 of 1984 and O.S.No.129 of 2007 respectively.

¶40

The Petitioners in both the civil revision petitions are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.421 of 1984 and defendants 1 to 6 in O.S.No.129 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Salem.

¶41

The petitioners have succeeded in O.S.No.421 of 1984 and levied an execution petition in REP No.62 of 1998, in which, the first respondent has filed a petition in REA No.284 of 1999 under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 and Section 151 CPC. The petitioners have filed transfer petitions seeking transfer of the execution petition and the suit in O.S.No.129 of 2007 alleging that the first respondent's husband Mr.Jayaraj is working as a Process Server in District Court, Salem and therefore, the first respondent was proclaiming that she will succeed in these cases. The petitioners have also raised other allegations, but , the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, without even numbering, dismissed the transfer petitions.

¶42

Mr.P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶43

the learned Judge ought to have numbered the petitions and decided after hearing the case of the petitioners. The finding recorded by the learned

¶44

¶45

Principal District Judge, Salem, without hearing the parties, cannot be sustained.

¶46

Per contra, Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have been unnecessarily prolonging the case and in CRP (NPD).Nos.3381, 3382 and 3668 of 2014, this Court has given a direction for disposal of the case within a period of two months. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have already advanced their arguments and at this stage, the petitioners have filed the transfer applications only to prolong the litigation.

¶47

It is true that in earlier revision petitions, this Court issued a direction for disposal of the case within a stipulated period. However, the learned District Judge, without even hearing the petitioners, rejected their petitions.

¶48

It is settled law that if any application is filed, they can be disposed of

¶49

after numbering, if it is maintainable in law. The discretion to grant interim orders in the transfer petitions is left to the Judge, but, in this case, the learned District Judge has dismissed the petitions without numbering and without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case. On this short ground, the impugned orders are set aside. The learned Principal District Judge, Salem, is directed to dispose of the transfer applications after hearing the

¶50

¶51

parties.

¶52

In the result, these civil revision petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶53

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

06.02.2015

¶55

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No sms

¶56

¶57

The Principal District Judge, Salem

¶58

¶59

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

¶60

sms

¶61

Pre-Delivery Order in C.R.P.(NPD) No.487 of 2015 and C,R.P.(PD).No.488 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

¶62

06.02.2015

Chinnammal, W/O.Kandasamy v. Lakshmi, W/O.Jayaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnammal, W/O.Kandasamy v. Lakshmi, W/O.Jayaraj

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

Mohan Breweries and Vs Mr. D.L. Sukumar

Mohan, S/O.Sambandham Vs Mani, S/O.Vaithilingam

G. Harihara Rajan Vs Niamuthullah

S.K. Krishnaraj Vs Komathi Sundar

Kalimuthu, S/O.Subbiah Vs Chellappan

D. Govindarajan Vs Leelavathy