Skip to content


Pappammal Vs. N. Chinna Gounder (Died) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1984)2MLJ210
AppellantPappammal
RespondentN. Chinna Gounder (Died) and ors.
Cases ReferredO.R. Seshadri v. Sundarasana Gupta
Excerpt:
- .....because rule 17 of the rules framed under act 18 of 1960 empowers only the district court to transfer appeals from one appellate authority to another appellate authority. in t.r. babu v. m.s. shanmugham chettiar (1965) 2 m.l.j. 15, it has been held that there is a clear distinction between orders of transfer and administrative orders allocating business to the courts of particular judges under section 4-a of tamil nadu act iii of 1873. once a judge has taken cognizance of a suit, any order removing the suit from his file is an order of transfer, and hence section 4-a would not apply. in the instant matter, appeal was presented on 5.3.1977. thereafter, it was called on innumerable occasions, and only after 2 years and 3 months, the principal subordinate judge had transferred it to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. The main point taken is that, the order of the appellate authority was passed without jurisdiction, in that, it was taken up by III Addl. Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli, on being transferred by Principal Subordinate Judge on 18.7.1979, which could not have been done by the Principal Subordinate Judge, because Rule 17 of the rules framed under Act 18 of 1960 empowers only the District Court to transfer appeals from one appellate authority to another appellate authority. in T.R. Babu v. M.S. Shanmugham Chettiar (1965) 2 M.L.J. 15, it has been held that there is a clear distinction between orders of transfer and administrative orders allocating business to the courts of particular Judges under Section 4-A of Tamil Nadu Act III of 1873. Once a Judge has taken cognizance of a suit, any order removing the suit from his file is an order of transfer, and hence Section 4-A would not apply. In the instant matter, appeal was presented on 5.3.1977. Thereafter, it was called on innumerable occasions, and only after 2 years and 3 months, the Principal Subordinate Judge had transferred it to III Addl. Subordinate Judge. On most of the adjourned dates, it was stated that. both sides were not ready, meaning thereby the matter was ready for hearing and disposal.

2. Rule 17 authorises only District Court to transfer an appeal from an appellate authority to another appellate authority.

3. Though Mr. Stanislas would attempt to contend that Sub-Judges are appellate authorities, by virtue of the Notification made in II-1 No. 3006/(f) of 1973, and that under Section 4-A of Act 3 of 1874, a Principal Subordinate Judge can at any time for arrangement of work among Courts distribute cases among the various Sub-Judges, in view of Rule 17 and in the light of the decision above referred to, once the matter has been taken up on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, he had no jurisdiction to transfer the appeal to III Addl. Subordinate Judge. Reference is also made to the decision of this Court in O.R. Seshadri v. Sundarasana Gupta (1981) 2 M.L.J. 239.

4. Hence, the order of the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is now remitted to the Principal Subordinate Judge, who functions as appellate authority under the Act is dispose of the appeal. This order would not preclude the District Judge to exercise his powers under Rule 17, if it is considered just and convenient. Hence the revision petition is allowed. No costs.


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