IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 59 of 2010() --------------------------------- OS.278/2009 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- FR.CYRIAC, S/O.CHERIAN AGED 72 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM,REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH AGED 52 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM PO, ARAKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.JOHNSON MANAYANI MR.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. ASHOK.M.CHERIYAN SC K.S.E.B THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(C). No. 59 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to have O.S. 278 of 2009 pending before the Sub Court, Kattappana to any other Sub Court at Ernakulam. 2. Petitioner and his brother instituted O.S. 62 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha against the respondent as defendant. The suit was one for recovery of plaint schedule property having an extent of 3.75 acres at Arakulam Village in Mulamattom Kara. Copy of the plaint is produced as Annexure A2. The defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and the petitioner is the sole legal representative now on record. When the suit was posted for trial, it is seen that the learned Sub Judge, Thodupuzha wanted to avoid the Tr.P.(C). 59/2010. 2 hearing of the suit. Notice was issued to the parties and the suit was later transferred to Sub Court, Kattappana. 3. Petitioner points out that the transfer of the suit to Sub Court, Kattappana is causing serious inconvenience to him and he is finding it difficult to go over there to prosecute the same. It is also pointed out that the counsel who is representing the respondent has an office in Ernakulam and the respondent will have no difficulty if the suit is tried at Ernakulam. 4. Notice was served on the respondent and he has not filed any objection. 5. It is not possible to understand as to why the suit was transferred to Kattappana. However, the petitioner has pointed out that it causes serious difficulties and inconvenience to him, and there is no harm if the suit is tried in any of the Sub Courts at Ernakulam. Since the counsel for the respondent as well as the respondent have an office at Ernakulam, there is no reason why the suit should not be tried in one of the Sub Courts at Ernakulam. Tr.P.(C). 59/2010. 3 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner's counsel is residing nearby and the respondent's counsel as well as the respondent have an office at Ernakulam, it is only just and proper that the relief be granted. In the result, this petition is allowed and O.S.278 of 2009 pending before the Sub Court, Kattappana is transferred to the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.