IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 101 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- TO TRANSFER OS.280/2010 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR TO SUB COURT VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------- R.K.SATHYANADHAN, S/O. R.K.KANNAN, 54 YEARS, REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS, KOZHIKKODE, RESIDING AT ORUVANTAVIDA HOUSE, CHERODE.P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF & 2ND DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDULRAHIMAN, S/O.VELLEKKAT MUHAMMED HAMSA, 45 YEARS, TIRUR AMSOM PORUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK-676101. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI SAJEEV THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.101 OF 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.280 OF 2010 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, TIRUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.101 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the Regional Joint Director of Urban Affairs, Kozhikode and as the learned counsel for petitioner submits, due to retire by March, 2012. First respondent filed O.S.No.280 of 2010 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Tirur claiming damages from petitioner/first defendant and since the alleged act was done by petitioner in his official capacity, his employer was impleaded as second defendant (second respondent in this proceeding). Petitioner has sought transfer of the case from Sub Court, Tirur to Sub Court, Vadakara for two reasons, viz., that since petitioner has his office at Kozhikode and the alleged act was done in discharge of his official duty learned Sub Judge, Tirur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and secondly, petitioner is due to retire by March, 2012, he belongs to Vadakara and in respect of an official act he has done, he is being called upon to attend the court at Tirur which is far away from Vadakara. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner is not pursuing in this petition the contention regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction for learned Sub Judge, Tirur to entertain the suit and that the request for transfer is confined to Section 22(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned counsel contended that when more courts than one have territorial Tr.P.(C) No.101/2011 2 jurisdiction to entertain the suit it is open to any of the parties to request to the court to which ordinarily appeal lies to order a transfer. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner would be put to difficulty even after March, 2012 if trial of the suit is continued at Tirur. Learned counsel for first respondent/plaintiff contends that if the act of petitioner is in his official capacity, he is entitled to seek exemption under Section 81(b) of the Code. 3. Now that there is no challenge in this petition to the jurisdiction of learned Sub Judge, Tirur to entertain the suit it is not necessary for me to go into that question. The question is only whether on the ground of inconvenience pleaded by petitioner request for transfer is to be allowed. Petitioner/first defendant is now aged 54 years and is to retire by March, 2012. It is not shown that petitioner is prevented by any physical infirmity from attending the court at Tirur. I must bear in mind that for the convenience of petitioner if the case is transferred to Vadakara, first respondent has to travel from Tirur to Vadakara. I must also bear in mind that territorial jurisdiction of the learned Sub Judge, Tirur is not challenged before me. In the circumstances I do not find justifiable reasons to direct transfer of the case. But it is made clear that so far as physical presence of petitioner before learned Sub Judge, Tirur is concerned, he need only appear as and when his physical presence is required and otherwise he could appear through counsel. That direction is sufficient to mitigate the difficulty that petitioner might have to suffer on account of his residence being at Tr.P.(C) No.101/2011 3 Vadakara and the case being tried at Tirur. It is open to the petitioner to file written statement if not already filed at the earliest and request learned Sub Judge, Tirur to dispose of the proceeding as early as possible. With the above directions and observations this petition is closed. I.A.No.802 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks