Dismissed

Santha Arunachalam v. a.Manoj Kumar

Madras HC6 Dec 2018TR CMP/869/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a transfer petition filed under Section 24 CPC seeking to move a suit from Chengalpat to Chennai. The court held that mere residential convenience and proximity (40 kms) were insufficient grounds, especially since parties must not appear at every hearing and transport facilities exist.

What did the court decide?

The petition for transfer of O.S.No.146 of 2011 is dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Santha Arunachalam Vs a.Manoj Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 06.12.2018

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN

¶5

Tr. C.M.P. No.869 of 2018

¶6

and

¶7

CMP.No.21484 of 2018

¶8

Santha Arunachalam Petitioner / 1^st Defendant 2. A. Mathiazhagan 3. A. Sridharan 4. A. Umaibalan 5. A. Amudha Petitioners / 3^rd to 6^th Defendants Vs. 1. Dr. A. Manoj Kumar 2. Visa Priyadharshini Respondents / Plaintiffs 3. A. Balamurugan Respondent / 2^nd Defendant

¶9

Prayer: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw O.S.No.146 of 2011 pending on the file of Principal District Court, Chengalpat and to transfer the same to Principal District Court, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr. S. Santosh for Mr. P. Giridharan O R D E R

¶11

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw O.S.No.146 of 2011 pending on the file of Principal District Court, Chengalpat and to transfer the same to Principal District Court, Chennai.

¶12

In the above Suit, 1st petitioner herein is the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd to 5^th petitioners are arrayed as 3^rd to 6^th defendants. Further, 1^st and 2^nd respondents in this application are the plaintiffs and the 3^rd respondent is the 2^nd defendant. In order to substantiate the claim, the main contention of the petitioners is that both the petitioners and the respondents are residing in Chennai and hence if the said Suit is transferred to Principal Judge Court, Chennai, there will be convenience to either parties in attending the Court proceedings in Chennai. However, the Counsel appearing for the petitioners admitted that the property now under dispute is situated within the jurisdiction of District Court, Chengalpat. Further, as of now, before the trial Court, the case has been posted for the cross examination of the plaintiff side evidence.

¶13

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

¶14

3.Now, for allowing the petition, except the above said reason, the petitioner has not mentioned any valid reason.

¶15

In this regard, on considering the said submission, it would appropriate to see that the distance between Chengalpat and Chennai. All are aware that the distance between both places is nearly 40 kms. Further, for the proceedings of the Civil Suit, the appearance of the party for every hearing is not necessary. Further, there is frequent bus, train facilities are available to reach Chengalpat. In the said circumstances, the sole reason stated by the petitioners is not sufficient ground to allow this petition.

¶16

In the light of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that this Court is not inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vrn
To
The Principal District Judge, Chengalpat

¶18

Tr. C.M.P. No.869 of 2018 nr 07/01/2019

¶19

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

Santha Arunachalam v. a.Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santha Arunachalam v. a.Manoj Kumar

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

S.Raju S/O Sevanan Vs K.Dhonan

Keerthana Vs Sudharsan Kumar

P.Vijaya Vs C.Kuppusamy

Maria Pauline Janet Vs Justin Narbert

Mrs. Sivagami Vs P.Velumani

Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal, Vs Govindasamy