Skip to content


S. Rajalakshmi Vs. D. Satyamurthy and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1982)1MLJ3
AppellantS. Rajalakshmi
RespondentD. Satyamurthy and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....o.c.j.1. the petitioner herein filed o.s. no. 2693 of 1981, on the file of the sixth assistant city civil judge, madras, for recovery of certain jewels and also for the past and future maintenance. the petitioner herein is the wife of the first respondent herein. the first respondent has also filed o.p. no. 285 of 1981, on the file of the sixth additional city civil judge, madras for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. c.m.p. no. 914 of 1981, was filed by the first respondent herein before the principal city civil judge, madras, praying for the transfer of the suit pending before the sixth assistant city civil judge, madras, to the file of the sixth additional city civil jujdge, madras, to be tried along with o.p. no. 285 of 1981. the principal judge, city civil court,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.

1. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 2693 of 1981, on the file of the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, for recovery of certain jewels and also for the past and future maintenance. The petitioner herein is the wife of the first respondent herein. The first respondent has also filed O.P. No. 285 of 1981, on the file of the Sixth Additional City Civil Judge, Madras for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. C.M.P. No. 914 of 1981, was filed by the first respondent herein before the Principal City Civil Judge, Madras, praying for the transfer of the suit pending before the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, to the file of the Sixth Additional City Civil Jujdge, Madras, to be tried along with O.P. No. 285 of 1981. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on the facts and circumstances of this case, ordered the transfer as prayed for. It is against this order, the petitioner who is the wife of the first respondent herein, has filed this civil revision petition.

2. Mr. D.C. Krishhamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has no power to effect such a transfer. According to the learned counsel, the Sixth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is not subordinate to the Court of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and as such' the transfer cannot be effected. Further, the learned Counsel submits that as per the Madras 'City Civil Court Act, there is no power to effect such' a transfer by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. It has been further stated that the Original Petition was filed in the Court which has the matrimonial jurisdiction and as such' the transfer of that petition to the file of the Sixth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, to be tried along with the suit filed by the petitioner herein cannot be entertained.

3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the general power of transfer and withdrawal. The Court of the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, is definitely a Subordinate Court to the Court of the Principal City Civil Judge, Madras. It is from this Court the suit has been withdrawn. Hence, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Principal City Civil Judge has the power to withdraw the suit from the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code. Even under the Madras City Civil Court Act, Section 4, states:

4. (1) The City Court shall consist of a Principal Judge and such number of Judges as the State Government may from time to time appoint.

(2) Subject to the provisions of Section 15 each of the Judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the Court by this Act or any other law for thetime being in force.

(3) The Principal Judge may from time to time make such arrangements as he may think fit for the distribution of the business of the Court among the various Judges thereof.

In view of Section 4(3) of the Madras City Civil Court Act, the Principal Judge is vested with the powers to make such arrangements as he may think fit for the distribution of the business of the Court among various Judges thereof. Having withdrawn the suit in view of the power vested with him from the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, 'lie Principal Judge has ample powers to make such arrangements as he may think fit for the distribution of the cases and under this provision, there is absolutely no bar for the Prin-ipal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, to distribute this work to the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in order that the same may be tried along with the original petition filed by the first respondent. I do not find any illegality or want of jurisdiction in the order passed by the lower Court.

4. In these circumstances, I do not find any question of jurisdiction as such involved in this revision for me to admit the same. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.


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