Dismissed

Venkatesan v. Kalaiselvi

Madras HC18 Jul 2022TR CMP(MD)/364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition filed under Section 24 r/w. 151 CPC sought transfer of execution proceedings from Ariyalur to Thanjavur due to petitioners' health and residence status. The court dismissed the application, holding that physical presence is not mandatory in execution matters as counsel can represent the parties.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of execution proceedings from Ariyalur to Thanjavur refused.

Venkatesan Vs Kalaiselvi — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Tr.CMP(MD)No.364 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Tr.CMP(MD)No.364 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.6082 of 2022

¶7

1.Venkatesan

¶8

2.Suseela

¶9

3.Santhi : Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Kalaiselvi : Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 24 r/w. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the case in EP.No.43 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Sessions Court, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District, and to transfer the same to the Principal District Sessions Court, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murugappan *****

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioners have filed this application to transfer the case in E.P.No.43 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2012 from the 1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Tr.CMP(MD)No.364 of 2022

¶18

file of the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Ariyalur to the file of the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.

¶19

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶20

the first petitioner is an Ex-service man, aged about 77 years, having age related ailments. The second petitioner is also an aged person and suffering from Cancer. They are residents of Thanjavur and it is very difficult for them to appear before the Court at Ariyalur and therefore, prayed for transferring the case.

¶21

3.This Court does not find any merit in the

¶22

application. In an execution proceedings, the parties need

¶23

not appear before the Court in each and every hearings and

¶24

a Counsel can represent their case. Therefore, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶25

Index : Yes / No 18.07.2022 Internet : Yes gk

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/4

¶28

Tr.CMP(MD)No.364 of 2022

¶29

¶30

1.The Principal District Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.

¶31

2.The Principal District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.

¶32

3/4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Tr.CMP(MD)No.364 of 2022

¶35

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶36

¶37

Tr.CMP(MD)No.364 of 2022

¶38

18.07.2022

¶39

4/4

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Venkatesan v. Kalaiselvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesan v. 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

Ayisha Begam Vs Madasamy Devar (Died)

Alagarsamy (Died) Vs Minor Aravindraj

S. Deepan Prabu Vs T.G.R. Vasanthakumar

Dhvya Ilakiya Vs Rajeswaran

Danush, Vs Kannan

S.Selvaraj Vs Mrs.B.Jothi Nimalasamy I.A.S.