Allowed

Saranya v. Loganathan

Madras HC21 Jan 2020TR CMP/714/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition to move a suit from Kallakurichi Sub Court to Namakkal Family Court due to the petitioner's residence and inability to travel with her sick parent and minor son. The case relief included an expedition direction for the receiving court.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P. No.75 of 2019 from Sub Court, Kallakurichi to Family Court, Namakkal; order to conclude trial without adjourning beyond 45 working days.

Saranya Vs Loganathan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.01.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

TRANSFER C.M.P.NO.714 OF 2019 AND C.M.P.NO.20193 OF 2019

¶6

Saranya ...Petitioner
vs.
Loganathan ...Respondent
Tr.C.M.P. filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw the
case in H.M.O.P. No.75 of 2019 pending on the file of Sub Court,
Kallakurichi and transfer the same to any other appropriate
court at Namakkal.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathi
For Respondent : No appearance
O R D E R

¶8

The Petitioner, who is presently residing at Namakkal Taluk, has come up with this Petition seeking transfer of H.M.O.P. No.75 of 2019 from the file of Sub Court, Kallakurichi to any other appropriate court at Namakkal.

¶9

According to the Petitioner, it would be very difficult for her to travel to Kallakurichi from Namakkal for attending the hearings in H.M.O.P. No.75 of 2019, as she has to catch two buses to reach Kallakurichi. Apart from that her minor son cannot be looked afterby her father as he is old and sick and she has to travel along with her kid.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. None appears on behalf of the Respondent in spite of his name printed in the cause list, after service.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

In the result, the proceedings in H.M.O.P. No.75 of 2019 is withdrawn from the file of Sub Court, Kallakurichi and is transferred to the file of Family Court, Namakkal, for trial. The Family Court, Namakkal is expected to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, without adjourning the matter beyond 45 working days at any point of time, to bring the issue to a logical end.

¶14

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.20193 of 2019 is closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
(Asr)
To :
1. The Judge, Family Court, Namakkal
2. The Sub Judge, Kallakurichi
+1cc to Mr.N.Umapathi, Advocate, S.R.No.3983
Tr.C.M.P.No.714 of 2019 and
C.M.P. No.20193 of 2019
KK(CO)
CS/02/03/2020

¶16

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

Saranya v. Loganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saranya v. Loganathan

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

Ravi Chettiar Vs Tmt.G.Eva Sulochana

Sivasankarai Vs M.Paranitharan

M.S.Thaslin Banu Vs Mohammaed Sayfullah

Shanmuga Priya Vs T.Krthikeyan

S.Pradeepa Vs v.Senthilkumar Alias Senthilkumaran

The Deputy Director Vs M/S.Tehzeeb Katari Textiles Pvt. Ltd.