Allowed

S.Sangeetha v. S.Haridoss

Madras HC6 Jan 2020TR CMP/670/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of a Maintenance Order Petition from one Sub Court to another to be tried alongside a related petition, citing the age of her parents and travel difficulties. The High Court allowed the transfer, directing the Sub Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Proceeding in H.M.O.P. No.3 of 2019 withdrawn from Sub Court Maduranthagam and transferred to Sub Court Tindivanam.

S.Sangeetha Vs S.Haridoss — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Transfer C.M.P.No.670 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.19224 of 2019

¶4

S.Sangeetha ...Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

S.Haridoss ...Respondent

¶7

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.3 of 2019 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam and transfer to the file of Sub Judge, Tindivanam to be heard along with H.M.O.P. No.137 of 2018.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Kingston Jerold

¶9

For Respondent : No appearance O R D E R

¶10

The Petitioner, who is presently residing at Nallathur, Konnerikuppam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, has come up with this Petition seeking transfer of H.M.O.P. No.3 of 2019 from the file of Sub Court, Maduranthagam to the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam to be tried along with H.M.O.P. No.137 of 2018.

¶11

According to the Petitioner, her parents are aged and may not be in a position to accommodate her for each hearing to Maduranthagam and that it would be difficult for her to travel without anyone accompanying her to attend the hearings in H.M.O.P. No.3 of 2019.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has been served about the pendency of the proceedings before this court. None appears on behalf of the Respondent in spite of his name printed in the cause list, after service.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶14

There is nothing on record to suspect the bonafides in filing this Transfer Petition. I am therefore of the view that the Transfer Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶15

Page No.1 of 2

¶16

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

¶17

In the result, the proceedings in H.M.O.P. No.3 of 2019 is withdrawn from the file of Sub Court, Maduranthagam and is transferred to the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam, to be tried along with H.M.O.P. No.137 of 2018. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam is expected to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, without adjourning the matter beyond 30 working days at any point of time, to bring the issue to a logical end.

¶18

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Asr
To :
1. The Subordinate Court, Tindivanam
2. The Subordinate Court, Maduranthagam
+1cc to Mr.Kingston Jerold, Advocate sr.762
Tr.C.M.P.No.670 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.19224 of 2019
pa(co)
nr 11/02/2020

¶20

Page No.2 of 2

¶21

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

S.Sangeetha v. S.Haridoss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sangeetha v. S.Haridoss

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

K.Rajeshwari Vs C.Rajendran

Poonkodi Vs Nagarajan

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sasikala

The Branch Manager, Vs R. Rani

Mrs. Suganthi Vs Pugalendhi

Avila Mariya Christina Vs Sridhar