Dismissed

Thangamariappan v. Perumalsamy

Madras HC5 Apr 2023TR CMP(MD)/51/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a transfer petition seeking to move a suit from Sattur to Kovilpatti. The court held that the short distance negated the need for transfer and held that allegations regarding a local public prosecutor did not constitute a sufficient case for transferring the suit.

What did the court decide?

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to transfer suit O.S.No.82/2022 is dismissed. No costs.

Thangamariappan Vs Perumalsamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.51 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1204 of 2023

¶7

Thangamariappan, S/o.Chinna Gurusamy

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.Perumalsamy, S/o.Marimuthu 2.Velammal, W/o.Sundaraj 3.Veerammal, W/o.Veerapandiyan .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw the case in O.S.No. 82 of 2022, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sattur and transfer the same to the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu For Respondents : Ms.Porkodi Karnan for M/s.Polax Legal Solutions

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner is the plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Sattur, in O.S.No.51 of 2023. The said suit has been filed for a relief of mandatory injunction.

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶18

The petitioner has filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous to transfer the said suit pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sattur, to the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.

¶19

The averment in the affidavit is that the nephew of the respondents one Ponraj is working as Assistant Public Prosecutor before the District Munsif Court, Sattur, and that he is using his influence in the Police Station and with the Members of the Bar, as a result of which, the petitioner was unable to engage any counsel from the Sattur Bar. Therefore, engaged a counsel from Kovilpatti Bar Association. The relevant portion of the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioner read as under:-

¶20

''5. I respectfully state that therefore, I made a complaint before the Government authorities for to stop the issuance of house tax receipt in the respondents' name and electricity connection. Therefore on 29.11.2020, the respondents are attacked me with dire consequences. Thereafter, I lodged a complaint before the Sattur Police Station against the respondents on 01.12.2020, the FIR was registered against the respondents in Crime No.588 of 2020 offences U/s.294(b), 324, 427 & 506(ii) of IPC, but, till now no action taken by the Sattur Police Station officials. Because, one Ponraj is working as Additional Public Prosecutor, Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sattur. He is relative of the respondents and he used his influence to the above police station and for not to any steps in the above crime number.

¶21

6. I respectfully state that therefore, I decided to file a suit against the respondents and engaged the Counsel at Sattur Bar Association, but, the

¶22

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

¶23

2/6

¶24

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶25

said Ponraj told that to all the Advocates of Sattur Bar Association not to file any suit on my side and therefore, none of the advocates were not ready to file a suit in my favour. Therefore on 01.11.2021, I made a complaint before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court against the Ponraj.

¶26

7. I respectfully state that subsequently, the present suit filed by myself with help of Kovilpatti Advocate. Thereafter, the said Ponraj instructed to the Filing Section not to number my suit. Therefore, the Section Officers are return my suit several times. Subsequently, I represented the suit with necessary documents and after then the suit was numbered. After numbering the suit, the summons were issued to the respondents. Now, the said Ponraj given many troubles to me, and he misused his power to the Lower Court.''

¶27

That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a complaint sent to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Court, wherein he has made the similar averments, which read as under:-

¶28

''jd; nrhe;j ,lj;jpy; gzpepakdk; ngw;W muR tof;fwpQuhf gzpGhpe;J tUk; S.nghd;uh[; M.A.B.L., mtHfs; ,e;j tof;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;ltUk; vd; kPJ jhf;Fjy; elj;jpatUkhd kh.ngUkhs;rhkp mtHfspd; jq;if kfd; MthH.

¶29

jdJ jha;khkDf;Fk;> cwtpdHfSf;Fk; MjuthfTk; nray;gl;lJ kl;Lky;yhky; midj;J eltbf;iffspYk; jiyaPL nra;J tUtNjhL kl;Lky;yhky; tof;fwpQH rq;fj;jpd; %ykhf Ngrp vdf;fhf tof;fwpQHfs; ahUk; M[uhf tplhky; jLj;Jk; tUfpwhH. ,jpy; rkhjhdk; Vw;glhjjhy; epyj;ij jd; ngahpy; gj;jpu gjpT nra;Js;shH.''

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶33

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is opposed by the learned

¶34

counsel for the respondents on the ground that the respondents are senior citizens. It is submitted that the suit has been filed for mandatory injunction and the property is located within the Sattur Taluk and that the averments in the affidavit and also in the copy of the representation dated 26.07.2021, which is said to have been sent to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Court, contain bald allegations. The said Ponraj is a Government employee and he never worked at Sattur and he is also not the Member of the said Bar and the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is transferable. It is submitted that the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed only to harass the respondents.

¶35

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

The distance between the District Munsif Court at Sattur and the District Munsif Court at Kovilpatti is hardly ½ an hour travel by road, even according to the learned counsels. Therefore, the counsel, who appears for the petitioner before the District Munsif Court, Sattur, can conduct the case. In case, any untoward incident is noticed, it is always open for the petitioner to move appropriate application for protection and for direction from the Court.

¶37

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

¶38

4/6

¶39

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶40

In my view, there is no case made out for transfer of the suit in O.S.No.82 of

¶41

2022, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sattur to the file of District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, based on the position held by the said Ponraj as Assistant Public Prosecutor. Hence, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No smn2

¶43

05.04.2023

¶44

¶45

1.The District Munsif, Sattur.

¶46

2.The District Munsif, Kovilpatti.

¶47

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

¶48

5/6

¶49

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶50

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶51

smn2

¶52

Order made in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.51 of 2023

¶53

05.04.2023

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

Thangamariappan v. Perumalsamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangamariappan v. Perumalsamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Thankapandi Alias Thalavaipandian Vs P. Veluchamy

Subashri Vs Muthammal

M. Saravanan, Vs a 79/1145, Dindigul Co-operative Building Society Limited

J.Saraswathi Vs C. Rajdeepak

C. Boopathy Rajadurai Vs B.a.Vigneshwari

Rashmi Vs Vengateswaran