Dismissed

D.Chandrammal v. P.Kalaiselvi

Madras HC10 Jan 2022TR CMP/392/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, who is the first defendant in a partition suit, sought transfer of the case from the Additional District Munsif Court, Tirupattur (to which it was administratively transferred) to the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambur. The court dismissed the petition, reasoning that the transfer was made for speedy disposal and the petitioner's request appeared to be an attempt to delay proc

What did the court decide?

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

D.Chandrammal Vs P.Kalaiselvi — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Tr.C.M.P.No.392 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.9084 of 2021

¶6

D.Chandrammal .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.P.Kalaiselvi 2.S.Kanchanan 3.B.Arivukodi 4.P.Sathiya 5.P.Nishanthi 6.P.Nivetha 7.S.RamaAshokan 8.V.Allirani 9.P.Vishwanathan .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to withdraw the O.S.No.148 of 2018 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Thirupathur and transfer to Additional District Munsif, Ambur.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.Nathan and Associates For Respondent : Mr.S.A.Rajkumar

¶11

The petitioner, who is the 1 st defendant in O.S.No.120 of 2013 now re-numbered as O.S.No.148 of 2018 seeks transfer of the said suit from the Additional District Munsif Court, Thirupathur to the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambur.

¶12

2. The suit was originally filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 4/6 th share in the suit property as O.S.No.120 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi. The 2 nd defendant who is the purchaser from the 1 st

¶13

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

¶14

defendant has also filed written statement and he is contesting the suit.

¶15

3. While the suit was pending before the District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi, an application for transfer was filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit in Tr.O.P.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore seeking transfer of the suit to any other Court, making certain allegations against the Presiding Officer. The said Tr.O.P. was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore on 8 th December 2015, on the ground that a ex parte preliminary decree has been granted and thus, the transfer petition has become infructuous.

¶16

4. Subsequently, the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore by way of an administrative order dated 19.09.2017 transferred the suit to the Additional District Munsif Court, Tirupattur for speedy disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the proceedings went on before the Additional District Munsif Court, Tirupattur for nearly 3 years now. It is at this stage, the petitioner, who is the 1 st defendant in the suit has come up with the transfer petition seeking transfer of the suit to Additional District Munsif Court, Ambur.

¶17

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged about 80 years and therefore she is unable to conduct trial by travelling to Tirupattur.

¶18

6. The learned counsel for the 7 th respondent, who is the 2 nd defendant in the suit would oppose transfer petition contending that it is by way of an administrative order, the suit was transferred to Additional District Munsif Court, Tirupattur and the trial Court has also commenced trial. He would contend that the 1 st defendant having sold the property to him, has now colluded with her daughters, who are plaintiffs and is attempting to delay the trial of the suit and force him to come to terms. The learned counsel would submit that the trial of the suit is at a advanced stage and the transfer at this stage would further delay the proceedings.

¶19

7. Considering the fact that the transfer was made by administrative order by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, to the Additional District Munsif Court, Tirupattur with a direction for speedy disposal, I do not think this request for transfer made by the petitioner could be entertained. I see some force in the contention of the counsel for the 7 th respondent that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings only to help her daughters who are the plaintiffs.

¶20

8. Therefore, I do not see any reason to accept the request for transfer. Hence, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition

¶21

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

¶22

is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(LA)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

dsa

¶27

¶28

The Additional District Munsif, Thirupathur.

¶29

+1cc to M/s.Nathan and Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.2125

¶30

Tr.C.M.P.No.392 of 2021

¶31

UM(CO) SU(31/01/2022)

¶32

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

D.Chandrammal v. P.Kalaiselvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Chandrammal v. P.Kalaiselvi

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

Rathinammal Vs Rajendran

G.Yasodha Vs R.Umarani

C.R.Arun Pandian Vs a.Balasubramaniam

I.Akila Vs R.Karthikeyan

Manoranjitham Vs M/S.Universal Fertilizer Corporation

M. Narayana Reddy Vs G.R. Munivenkata Reddy