BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11/03/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.25 Of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 Of 2010 Dakshinamara Nadar Sangam, Tiruneveli, through its Secretary, S.S.S.Nathan, No.70, Salai Street, Sindhu Poondurai, Tirunelveli-1. .. Petitioner vs 1. A.Asokan 2. D.Soundar Raj Nadar 3. A.Selvaraj Nadar 4. K.K.Kasiviswanatha Nadar 5. K.Paulraj Nadar 6. A.M.Vijaya Raja Nadar 7. R.Stanly Vedamanicka Nadar 8. S.David Daniel Nadar 9. V.Fredrick Jeyaraj Nadar 10. M.Thiyagarajan 11. P.Arumuga Nadar .. Respondents. PRAYER Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying this Court to withdraw and transfer the appeal in A.S.No.42 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruneveli to any other District Court in Tirunelveli District to adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Packiaraj ^For Respondents ... Mr.B.Stalin 1,8 and 11 For Respondents ... Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram 2 to 5 For Respondents ... Mr.S.Kumar 6,7,9 and 10 :ORDER
The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.105 of 2008, on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, praying for declaration that all the
resolutions stated to be passed in the General Body Meeting, dated 30.05.2008
and the consequential claim of the defendants 1 to 10 appointing them as
Temporary Administrative Committee and Election Officer as null and void and
consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 10 from
doing anything to interfere with the affairs of the plaintiff sangam in any
manner including conducting elections claiming strength of the resolutions of
the meeting dated 30.05.2008.
2. On 23.10.2009, the trial court dismissed the suit on merits, after
hearing both sides.
3. The petitioners herein filed A.S.No.42 of 2009 against the said
judgement dated 23.10.2009 in O.S.No.105 of 2008 and the same is pending before
the Principal Distirct Judge, Tirunelveli.
4. The petitioner filed I.A.No.218 of 2009 in A.S.No.42 of 2009, praying
for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the
actvities of the plaintiff sangam and its properties, till the disposal of the
appeal. It is stated that I.A.No.218 of 2009 is still pending.
5. While so, this application is filed seeking tranfer of A.S.No.42 of
2009, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruneveli to any other court
in Tirunelveli District to adjudicate the appeal.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking transfer,
certain allegations are made in paragraph 11 of the affidavit against the
defendants in the suit who are the respondents in the appeal and the Learned
District Judge and paragraph 11 of the affidavit is extracted hereunder:
“11. The respondents group headed by one Mr.S.Vaikundarajan of
V.V.Minerals, who is multi millionaire, has close contact with Mr.Ramachandran,
a retired District and now assumed Office as President, Tirunelveli Consumer
Redressal Forum who passed several judgment in favour of S.Vaikundarajan while
he was inservice. Mr.S.Vaikundarajan and Mr.Ramachandran met the learned
Principal District Judge several time and in the result the said Vaikundarajan
openly declared that the appeal will be dismissed very shortly and will be
captured the sangam administration within a short period. Hence, we apprehend
that the learned Principal District Judge is bias.”
7. On 11.02.2010, notice of motion was ordered to the respondents. Notice
was served on the respondents and they are represented by counsels. The
respondents 2 to 5 filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in
para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The following is the
reply found in paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit refuting the allegations made
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and Paragraph 8 of the reply
affidavit is extracted hereunder:
“8. I humbly submit that just to invoke the sympathy of this
HonourableCourt’ a story between Mr.S.Vaikundarajan and Ramachandran had been
created. On enquiry by thisrespondent with Mr.S.Vaikundarajan it is learnt that
the allegation that Mr.Ramachandran has passed several judment in favour of
Mr.Vaikundarajan; while he was in service is totally untrue. The alleged
meetings between Principal district Judge and Mr.S.Vaikundarajan is totally
untrue. It is submitted that Mr.Vaikundarajan never declared that the appeal
will be dismissed very shortly and administration of Sangam will be captured.”
8. The learnedcounsel for other respondents also refuted the allegations
made in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition. While
refuting the allegations made in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of
the transfer petition, the learned counsels for the respondents submit that they
have no objection for appeal being adjudicated in any other court as directed
by this Court.
9. Initially, this Court was of the view to call for the report from the
Judge concerned regarding the allegations and since the respondents have no
objection for the matter being tranferred to any other court, I am of the view
that the matter could be transferred, without going into the allegations
contained in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
10. In these circumstances, A.S.No.42 of 2009, pending on the file of the
principal District Judge, Tiruneveli is transferred to the file of the I
Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, for disposal in accordance with law.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents have stated that this Court
passed an order, dated 28.05.2005, in C.R.P.No.920 of 2008, holding that subject
to the result of the suit, elected office-bearers would take charge.It is
submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, dated 28.05.2005, in
C.R.P.No.920 of 2008, elected Office bearers are not able to assume charge. The
respondents who have no objection for transfer, have prayed this Court that a
direction may issued to the court to which the matter is transferred to dispose
of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Inthese circumstances, the I
Additional District Judge, Tiruneveli is directed to dispose of A.S.No.42 of
2009, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Order.
12. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is disposed
of in abvoe terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No
costs.
vsn
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2. The IAdditional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.