IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 269 of 2009()
1. M/S.ASMA RUBBER PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. C.Y.A.RASHEED,
3. C.Y.A.RAMLA MOHAMMED,
4. CYA RAUF,
5. CYA RAJINA BEEVI,
6. ASMATTINA RASHEED,
7. FATHIMA BEEVI RASHEED,
8. FATHIMA NASMIN MOHAMMED,
9. TARIQ MOHAMMED,
10. K.M.PHILIP,
11. V.A.KUNJUMON,
12. C.D.MATHAI,
13. P.R.SABU,
14. JAHEEL RAUF,
15. A.M.AKBAR ALI,
16. CYA RAZACK,
17. SASIDHARAN NAIR,
18. SARASAMMA,W/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.ULLAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :22/09/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
Tr.P.(C).NO.269 OF 2009 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009
O R D E R
Petition for transfer is filed under Section 24 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the 15th defendant in
O.S.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala. Suit has
been filed by the 1st respondent a bank, against the petitioner
and the other respondents, who are the defendants in the suit,
for a decree that some of the documents executed by the
defendants are void and not binding on the plaintiff bank. The
schedule properties covered by the deeds are also described
in the plaint by the plaintiff bank. Petitioner has filed this
petition for transfer contending that the bank had initiated
parallel proceedings under the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Ernakulam and also before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Ernakulam to realise the debts due under the loan
allegedly advanced to the petitioner company. So much so,
transfer of the present case also to a competent civil court at
Ernakulam will be convenient and all the more necessary, is
the case advanced for presenting this petition.
TPC.269/09 2
2. The 1st respondent bank has entered appearance. I
heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the
1st respondent. Having regard to the submissions made and
taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find
that the mere fact that the bank had taken proceedings under
the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Ernakulam will not enable the
petitioner to seek transfer of the suit from the court at Pala,
where the immovable properties covered by the suit are
situate, to a court at Ernakulam. In respect of immovable
properties, needless to point out, that the suit to be filed
complying with the mandate under Section 16 of the CPC.
Without sufficient and convincing reasons justifying a transfer
from that court to another competent court, cannot be
ordered. There is no merit in the transfer petition, and hence,
it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
——————————-
W.P.(C).NO. OF 2002 ()
———————————–
Dated this the day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp