Shahul Hameed vs Kadalai Hussain on 11 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(C).No. 286 of 2009()


1. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. KUNJAMMU HAJI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KADALAI HUSSAIN, AGED 57 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. A.V. SATHAR, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN,

3. P.V. MANAF, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :11/01/2010

 O R D E R
              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                   -------------------------------
                Tr.P.(C).NO.286 OF 2009 ()
                 -----------------------------------
        Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010

                           O R D E R

Petition for transfer is filed under Section 24 of the Code

of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the 3rd defendant in

O.S.No.275 of 2009 on the fie of the Sub Court, Tirur. Suit is

one for damages and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the

other respondents are co-defendants. The 1st

respondent/plaintiff has claimed damages alleging that on

false representations made by the defendants in the suit,

petitioner and 2nd and 3rd respondents, producing a forged

document before the income tax authorities, he had been

summoned to that office and questioned and thereby he had

suffered injury by the acts committed by the defendants.

Transfer petition has been filed contending that the

defendants are carrying out commercial activities within

Palakkad and also that the cause of auction for the institution

of the suit arose at that place and not at Tirur, where the suit

TPC.286/09 2

had been instituted. Petitioner has therefore sought for

transfer of the suit to the Sub Court, Palakkad.

2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has entered

appearance. In the transfer petition, this Court is not

expected to go into the question of jurisdiction based on the

cause of auction or the residence of the parties. If at all the

petitioner/3rd defendant has any case that the suit has not

been instituted in the proper court where it should have been

instituted, it is open to him to raise such challenges before the

court where the suit had been instituted. Prima facie on the

materials produced and submissions made where it is shown

that the suit has been filed to claim damages for injuries

suffered by the plaintiffs and also that the petitioner/3rd

defendant is having a residence within the jurisdiction of the

court where the suit had been instituted, I find no merit in the

transfer petition and it is dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp