IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 455 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OPTP.279/2010 OF DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.377/2008 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- NIZARUDEEN, S/O.MOHAMMED KASSIM, AGED 39 YEARS, ANEEZA MANZIL, CHEMPAKAMANGALAM, KORANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAFI A.R., S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 39 YEARS, RAHIM MANZIL, THEKKETHILKADAMUKKU, THEKKEVILA WARD, KANIYAPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695316. 2. HASHIR A.R., S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 43 YEARS, RAHIM MANZIL, THEKKETHILKADAMUKKU, THEKKEVILA WARD, KANIYAPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695316. 3. HARIS A.R., S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 42 YEARS, RAHIM MANZIL, THEKKETHILKADAMUKKU, THEKKEVILA WARD, KANIYAPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HASHIR A.R., 2ND RESPONDENT PIN -695316. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.455 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.377 of 2008 on the file of the court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner/defendant filed O.P.(T.P.) No.279 of 2010 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram praying to transfer the suit to Sub Court, Attingal. One of the reasons stated by the defendant for transfer was that the second plaintiff is a practising lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram. Some unpleasant incidents took place before court on a date on which the case was posted. It was alleged by the defendant that the second plaintiff was responsible for the incident whereas the second plaintiff said that the defendant was responsible. Anyhow, that is not a relevant aspect for consideration now. 2. The petitioner submitted that the case may be O.P.(C)No.455/2011 2 transferred to Sub Court, Attingal. That was mainly on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner is practising at Attingal. That prayer was opposed by the plaintiffs. They submitted that if the transfer of the case was found necessary, the suit could be transferred either to Sub Court, Nedumangad or to Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. The District Court transferred the suit to Sub Court, Nedumangad. 3. The second plaintiff challenged the order passed by the District Court in O.P.(C) No.94 of 2011, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 10th January, 2011. 4. The petitioner is not entitled to choose the court. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the court having jurisdiction. The petitioner prayed for transfer on the ground that the second plaintiff is a practising Advocate at Thiruvananthapuram. That was a genuine reason for transfer. The court below thought that the suit should be O.P.(C)No.455/2011 3 transferred to Sub Court, Nedumangad. It is in the discretion of the court as to which court the suit should be transferred. Of course, the parties are entitled to make suggestions. But they cannot insist that the suit should be transferred to a particular court which they choose. 5. The order passed by the court below is proper and legal. There is no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl