Dismissed

Amilpoor Swapna , Radha v. Amilpoor Raj Kumar , Raju

Telangana HC5 Jul 2017TRCMP/419/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of proceedings from Cyberabad to Nalgonda citing distance and travel difficulty as a woman. Court noted representation by counsel suffices and dismissed transfer, directing trial court not to insist on personal appearance except for cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Transfer civil miscellaneous petition dismissed; directions issued to trial court regarding appearance and safeguards.

Amilpoor Swapna , Radha Vs Amilpoor Raj… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.419 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This transfer civil miscellaneous petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), is filed to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.868 of 2015 pending on the file of XVI Additional District Judge, Cyberabad at Malkajigiri, Ranga Reddy District and transfer the same to any court at Nalgonda District or the courts at Nalgonda.

¶5

The only ground raised in paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the petition that she is living with her parents at Narketpally with her three children and it is difficult for her to attend the court on each date of adjournment before the Court at Malkajigiri, and being a lady she is unable to undertake journey regularly from Narketpally to Malkajigiri.

¶6

Undisputedly, the petitioner being a lady may face difficulty to undertake journey covering a distance of 80 kilometers, that by itself is not a ground to transfer the H.M.O.P., since the proceedings before the court at Malkajigiri are purely civil in nature and her appearance on each and every date of adjournment is not required as long as she is being represented by her counsel and prosecuting the proceedings on her behalf before the court where the O.P. is pending. Even otherwise, her presence is required on the date when her crossexamination is required to be recorded or for any other purpose when the court directed the petitioner for her personal appearance.

¶7

Tr.CMP_419_2017

¶8

¶9

In Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam¹ the Apex Court, at

¶10

paragraph 18, issued the following guidelines:

¶11

“We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the Defendants/ Respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of Defendants/ Respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:

¶12

i) Availability of video conferencing facility.

¶13

ii) Availability of legal aid service.

¶14

iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV Code of Civil Procedure.

¶15

iv) E-Mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate.”

¶16

In view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, if the facility of video conference is available, the evidence of witness can be recorded by video conference. If the petitioner has to undertake journey in view of non availability of video conference facility, she may seek appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record her evidence and cross-examination, and if for any reason she is facing financial difficulty to undertake journey to appear before the court, the respondent shall be directed to deposit the expenses for journey, boarding and lodging in terms of order XXV CPC.

¶17

Therefore, the XVI Additional District Judge, Cyberabad at Malkajigiri is requested not to insist the presence of the petitioner on every date of adjournment, except on the dates when her cross-

¶18

1 AIR 2017 SC 1345

¶19

Tr.CMP_419_2017

¶20

¶21

examination is required to be recorded by the court itself or for any other specific purpose, as long as she is being represented by her counsel and prosecuting the proceedings.

¶22

This direction would not preclude the XVI Additional District Judge, Cyberabad at Malkajigiri, to pass any order against the petitioner, in the event the counsel for the petitioner did not represent and prosecute the proceedings on her behalf.

¶23

In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to withdraw and transfer the H.M.O.P. No.868 of 2015, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

In the result, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is

¶25

disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶26

Miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in the transfer civil miscellaneous petition shall stand closed.

¶27

__________________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 05.07.2017 BV

Amilpoor Swapna , Radha v. Amilpoor Raj Kumar , Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amilpoor Swapna , Radha v. Amilpoor Raj Kumar , Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Mohan Krishna Vs v. Varalakshmamma

K.Padma Rao, Vs Smt. Jilla Saritha Dilip

Lanka Venkatpathi Rao Vs Lanka Sravya

The Osman GunjExtension Co-Operative Housing Society Vs Adi Ashok

Pokuri Satyanarayana Vs Pokuri Ammanamma

Manikchand, Vs B.Vimala Jain