Allowed

S.Pricilla Ugin v. R.Jebasingh

Madras HC1 Nov 2019TR CMP(MD)/270/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a transfer petition seeking to move a civil case from the Nagercoil Family Court to the Tuticorin District Court due to pending criminal cases and a lack of willing local counsel for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the case in I.D.O.P.No.32 of 2019 from Family Court, Nagercoil to Principal District Court, Tuticorin.

S.Pricilla Ugin Vs R.Jebasingh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

TR.C.M.P.(MD)No.270 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

TR.C.M.P.(MD)No.270 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6300 of 2019

¶7

S.Pricilla Ugin

¶8

... Petitioner/Respondent

¶9

Vs.

¶10

R.Jeyasingh Rajkumar ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

PRAYER:- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC, to withdraw and transfer the case in I.D.O.P.No.32 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Nagercoil to the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin by allowing this petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivathilagar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Sureshkumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking transfer of the case in I.D.O.P.No.32 of 2019 from the file of the learned Family Court, Nagercoil to the file of learned Principal District Court, Tuticorin.

¶16

2.The transfer is sought for mainly on the ground that there are criminal cases pending in the Nagercoil Police Station against the petitioner and in fact under one such complaint, she had been detained under judicial custody and therefore, she is apprehensive of going to Nagercoil. That apart, since the complaint involved an Advocate, the members of the Kanyakumari Bar are not willing to represent her in the above proceedings.

¶17

3.The arguments made by the petitioner contained considerable force. Though the notice had been served on the respondent, he has neither entered appearance through counsel nor in person, when the matter was called.

¶18

4.In view of the above convincing reasons, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. Accordingly, the case in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

TR.C.M.P.(MD)No.270 of 2019

¶21

I.D.O.P.No.32 of 2019 is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred from the file of the Family Court, Nagercoil, to the file of Principal District Court, Tuticorin. the learned Family Court, Nagercoil, is directed to transmit the entire records in I.D.O.P.No.32 of 2019 to the Principal District Court, Tuticorin and the learned Principal District Court, Tuticorin, is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

gns

¶26

¶27

1.The Judge, Family Court, Nagercoil.

¶28

2.The Principal District Court, Tuticorin.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.S.SURESHKUMAR, Advocate (SR-95685[F] dated 04/11/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.SIVA THILAKAR, Advocate ( SR-95729[F] dated 04/11/2019 )

¶30

TR.C.M.P.(MD)No.270 of 2019 01.11.2019

¶31

JMN(18.11.2019) 2P : 5C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

S.Pricilla Ugin v. R.Jebasingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pricilla Ugin v. R.Jebasingh

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

C.Sathiyanathan @ Vs St.Thersa Paris

P. Subramanian Vs Raja

The State of Tamilnadu Vs S.Pamanabapillai(Amended as) Tmt. Rajeswari

Thirunarayanan Vs Arjunan

Gopalanathan Vs Ponnammal W/O.Late Kadappan

S.Muthulakshmi Vs a.Ravichandran