S.Bernice, v. v.Prabhu
Case brief
What is this about?
The court observed that notice in the transfer petition was served on an unidentified third party rather than the respondent. It directed the petitioner to serve a fresh or private notice within three weeks and extended an existing interim order till then.
What did the court decide?
Directed to take fresh notice within three weeks; private notice permitted. Interim order extended.
What the court decided
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Monday, the First day of July Two Thousand Nineteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.S.SUNDAR
TR CMP(MD) No.145 of 2019 and CMP(MD) No.3166 of 2019
S.BERNICE ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT Vs V.PRABHU ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to withdraw the proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.51 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore and transfer the same to Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.
Prayer in CMP(MD). 3166/2019 :
To STAY all further proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.51 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore pending disposal of the above Tr.CMP(MD)No.145 of 2019 and thus render justice.
ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order:-
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether private notice to the respondent is permissible given the initial service on a third party.
Whether the interim order regarding the transfer/stay in I.D.O.P.No.51 of 2018 should be extended while obtaining proper notice.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.BERNICE
- respondent
V.PRABHU
Coram
S.S.SUNDAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court