4.The respondent has resisted the transfer request of the petitioner on various grounds. At the foremost, it is stated that the divorce proceeding laid by him and pending on the file of the Family Court, Trichy is at part-heard stage and in such view of the matter, when the petitioner had been all along participating in the abovesaid proceeding and the matter had reached the part-heard stage, at this stage of the matter, the interest of justice would not be served, if the proceeding is transferred from the said Court to Chennai Court and therefore, sought for the rejection of the transfer request. Secondly, it is contended by the respondent's counsel that seeking similar relief, the petitioner has already laid transfer CMP (MD) No.199 of 2018 at Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and for the reasons best known to her, had chosen to withdraw the same and consequently, the abovesaid transfer CMP has been dismissed as withdrawn and according to him, the petitioner has suppressed the abovesaid dismissal of the transfer CMP at Madurai Bench and furthermore, she has also not reserved any liberty to move a fresh transfer CMP again for the same cause and therefore, according to him, the present transfer CMP is legally not sustainable. In this connection, he also placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2014 (4) CTC 555 (The Moderator, The Church of Sourth India, CSI Synod Centre, Nos., Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14 Vs. Rt.Rev.Dr.J.A.D.Jebachandran, Bishop of Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocease Bishops, House No.11/32T, State Bank Colony, Thoothukudi-2.) and (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases 5 (Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, and others). Furthermore, it is also putforth by the respondent's counsel that the proceedings pending before the Chennai Court has nothing to do with the matrimonial issues between the parties and therefore, the transfer request putforth by the petitioner does not merit acceptance.
