Skip to content


S. Padmavathi Vs. G. Sakthi Saravanan and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTr.C.M.P.(MD).No. 211 of 2015 & M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015
Judge
AppellantS. Padmavathi
RespondentG. Sakthi Saravanan and Others
Excerpt:
.....trial along with the suit in o.s.no.480 of 2013. 2. the contention of the petitioner is that the suit filed before madurai court for recovery of money is filed before the court which has no jurisdiction. further the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the maudrai court ought not to have numbered the suit for recovery of money filed by the first respondent herein. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the transfer petition by stating that the suit filed before the madurai court is for recovery of money and the suit filed before the erode court is for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property. this apart, the first respondent one mr.g.sakthi saravanan is not a party in the suit before the erode court in o.s.no.480 of 2013......
Judgment:

(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.381 of 2012 on the file of IIIrd Additional Sub Judge, Madurai and to transfer the same to Sub Judge, Erode, for conducting joint trial along with the suit in O.S.No.480 of 2013 on his file.)

1. The present petition for transfer is filed to transfer O.S.No.381 of 2012 pending before the III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai to the file of Sub Court, Erode for conducting joint trial along with the suit in O.S.No.480 of 2013.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit filed before Madurai Court for recovery of money is filed before the Court which has no jurisdiction. Further the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Maudrai Court ought not to have numbered the suit for recovery of money filed by the first respondent herein.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the transfer petition by stating that the suit filed before the Madurai Court is for recovery of money and the suit filed before the Erode Court is for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property. This apart, the first respondent one Mr.G.Sakthi Saravanan is not a party in the suit before the Erode Court in O.S.No.480 of 2013. Therefore, no joint trial is possible. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Trial has already commenced in O.S.No.381 of 2012 and PW1 filed the proof affidavit. Hence, the case need not be transferred, which will create not only inconvenience, but also result inconsistency in the trial.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is not even a party in O.S.No.480 of 2013 pending before the Erode Court, the question of joint trial does not arise. Accordingly, the petition deserves no consideration and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //