BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30/08/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.269 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009
1.K.V.Kamanan,
2.K.V.Subramani,
3.K.V.Mariayee,
4.K.V.Pappathiammal,
5.K.V.Parvathiammal. ... Petitioners/Respondents
Vs
1.T.P.Krishnan,
2.K.Neelavathi. ... Respondents/Petitioners
The Transfer C.M.P. is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to withdraw and
transfer C.M.A.No.20 of 2009 from the file of Sub Court, Palani to the Sub
Court, Dindigul or any other Sub Court in any other District in Tamil Nadu.
!For Petitioners ... Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
^For Respondents ... Mr.C.Vakeeswaran
-----
:ORDER
The Transfer C.M.P. is filed to withdraw and transfer the C.M.A.No.20 of
2009 from the file of Sub Court, Palani to the Sub Court, Dindigul or any
other Sub Court in any other District in Tamil Nadu.
2. The grievance of the petitioners as stated in the affidavit appears to
be vague and bereft of details. In paragraph 3, it is stated that the
petitioners apprehended on reasonable ground and on past experience that they
may not get justice at the hands of the Court below. This statement is vague as
vagueness could be. In paragraph 4 it is stated that the First Appeal in
A.S.No.39 of 2009 against the decree and judgment passed in suit O.S.No.26 of
2002 was filed by the wife of the first petitioner before the Sub Court, Palani.
The said A.S.No.39 of 2009 was dismissed by the Sub Judge, Palani. Because of
the dismissal of the appeal suit, apprehending that C.M.A.No.20 of 2009 may also
go in favour of the respondents, the present transfer C.M.P. has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents, who states that the
dismissal of the appeal suit A.S.No.39 of 2008 has nothing to do with the
disposal of the C.M.A.No.20 of 2009.
4. The relief sought in the earlier suit O.S.No.26 of 2002 and the present
suit O.S.No.16 of 2009 are totally different. The petitioners instead of
pursuing their claim as per law, are trying to prolong the litigation on some
pretext or the other. The reason stated in the affidavit does not justify the
withdrawal or transfer.
5. This Court having considered the affidavit filed in support of the
petition filed for transfer is unable to find any good reason as to why the
transfer C.M.P. should be allowed. The transfer petition has been filed only on
apprehension. A decision rendered by the Court in an earlier suit if it goes
against one or other party cannot be the ground for seeking transfer of another
suit or consequential proceedings. Transfer from a Court of competent
jurisdiction cannot be ordered as a matter of course or based on an
apprehension of the party. There has to be some basis for seeking transfer. If
there is an error in judgment in one case as alleged, it is not as if the party
has no remedy in law. The party who loses in a proceeding cannot plead the
same as the reason for transfer. If on the basis of such claim, transfer
petitions are entertained, then in every case there will be an application for
transfer. This will lead to chaos in administration of justice.
6. In the case of A.S.No.39 of 2008, the petitioners have to pursue
further appeal to the competent Court, if aggrieved. Therefore, merely because
one case has been decided against the petitioners, that cannot be a ground to
transfer the another case. If such a plea is entertained, then, if one party
gets a favourable order in the main suit or in the interlocutory application,
the other party will seek transfer on flimsy grounds as has been stated in the
present case. It will destroy the functioning of the Court below. Besides,
unwarranted allegations will be flung on the Presiding Officer. Hence, this
Court is not inclined to entertain the frivolous and baseless transfer
petition.
7. The petitioners’ counsel on instructions states that the petitioners
undertake to proceed with the matter without further delay. He also states
that the petitioners were swayed by rumours and misconception and hence, the
present transfer petition has been filed. He expressed unconditional apology
for the statement made in the affidavit and the same is accepted. In such view
of the matter, this Court refrains from imposing cost.
8. In the result, the Transfer C.M.P. is dismissed. In view of the
undertaking by both parties for early disposal, the Court below is directed to
dispose off the matter expeditiously. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
ts
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Palani.