Skip to content


Kingston S. David Vs. Asia Match Company Private Ltd. and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTr.C.M.P.(MD)No. 325 of 2010 & M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 of 2010 & 2 of 2011
Judge
AppellantKingston S. David
RespondentAsia Match Company Private Ltd. and Others
Excerpt:
.....of 2004 is to be transferred to the principal subordinate court, trichy, for joint trial. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent opposed the petition by stating that after the filing of the transfer petition, the suit in o.s.no.9 of 2004 before the principal district court, srivilliputhur, was proceeded with and p.w.1 was examined on 07.10.2010 itself and further, the matter was posted for cross-examination on 27.10.2010 and the marking of documents were also completed. subsequently, the suit was posted on various dates and meanwhile, the transfer petition was taken up for hearing and the name of the first respondent's counsel was not printed in the cause-list and the transfer petition was allowed in the absence of the counsel for the first respondent. subsequently,.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to pass an order to withdraw the case in O.S.No.9 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur and transfer to Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy.)

1. The present case is for transfer to transfer O.S.No.9 of 2004 from the file of the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur to the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Coimbatore and the first respondent filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioner in O.S.No.9 of 2004 before the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur. The grounds raised by the petitioner for transfer of the said suit are that he is an aged person and further, he cannot travel from Coimbatore to Srivilliputhur to defend the case. The further contention is that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.451 of 2010 is pending before the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy and the suit is for declaration that one Mr.Daniel Selvaraj is dead and for permanent injunction. The petitioner contends that in view of the above said factors, the suit filed by the first respondent in O.S.No.9 of 2004 is to be transferred to the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy, for joint trial.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent opposed the petition by stating that after the filing of the transfer petition, the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2004 before the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, was proceeded with and P.W.1 was examined on 07.10.2010 itself and further, the matter was posted for cross-examination on 27.10.2010 and the marking of documents were also completed. Subsequently, the suit was posted on various dates and meanwhile, the transfer petition was taken up for hearing and the name of the first respondent's counsel was not printed in the cause-list and the transfer petition was allowed in the absence of the counsel for the first respondent. Subsequently, the counsel for the first respondent filed a petition for restoration and the transfer petition was restored on 28.04.2011 and the transfer petition was taken on file.

4. The further contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that during the interregnum period, the case bundle relating to O.S.No.9 of 2004 was sent back to the Court at Trichy and it was posted there and he filed a memo by stating that the Transfer petition was restored and it is pending before the High Court, Madurai Bench. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the first respondent contends that the grounds raised by the petitioner for transfer are not loud enough to consider, in view of the fact that the petitioner is residing at Coimbatore and it makes less difference either he travels from Coimbatore to Trichy or to Srivilliputhur and, therefore, the present petition for transfer is filed only with an idea to harass the first respondent and there is no merit in the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, represents that he has not received any instruction from his client after 2011.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, has already commenced the trial of the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2004 and examined P.W.1 and posted the case for cross-examination, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for transfer and accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that during the interregnum period, the case bundle in O.S.No.9 of 2004 was transmitted from the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur to Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy and re-numbered as O.S.No.421 of 2011. If this fact is correct, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy, is directed to transmit the case bundle to the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, enabling the Court to continue the trial, which was already commenced on 07.10.2010. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2004 and pending for the past 12 years, the learned Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur, is directed to proceed with the trial and complete the trial, as early as possible and dispose of the suit, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.


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