IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 83 of 2009() ------------------------ OS.40/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR AND OS.222/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- ARAVINDA RAJA, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE D.ARAVINDAKSHAN, GEMINI, PRA-5 PADIVATTOM EDAPALLY PO,COCHIN 682 024. BY ADVS. MR.MOHAN PULIKKAL, MR.REJI GEORGE, SMT.MANJU RAJAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ADITYA RANA, MINOR AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, S/O.LATE ARAVINDA RANA , REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, S.DEEPA FLAT NO.J-9B, ROYAL GARDENS, OPP.MILMA DAIRY, REFINERY ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. S.DEEPA, ROYAL GARDENS, FLAT J 9 B, OPP.MILMA DAIRY, REFINERY ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN, SMT.M.HEMALATHA, MR.R.S.MADHU, MR.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).NO.83 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The above transfer petition has been filed under Section 24 of the CPC. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1065/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Respondents in the petition are the son of petitioner's brother (late) and widow of the brother. The respondents have filed two suits as O.S.No.40/2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Paravur and O.S.No.222/2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioner as the defendant. First respondent is a minor child and the 2nd respondent mother is representing him in all the proceedings as his next friend. All the three suits are interconnected. The issues emerging for consideration and evidence to be adduced in all the three suits are common is the case of the petitioner for joint trial of all the suits to avoid conflicting decisions and hardship and injury to the parties. Tr.P.C.83/09 2 Petitioner seeks for transfer of O.S.No.222/2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram and O.S.No.40/2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Paravur to Sub Court, Ernakulam, where he has filed O.S.No.1065/2007 as the plaintiff. Notice was given on the application. Respondents have entered appearance and filed a counter contending that the transfer sought for is not allowable and it lacks bona fides. The matter involved in all the suits, according to the respondents, are either within the Paravur Munsiff Court or Thiruvananthapuram Munsiff Court. After the death of the former husband, the 2nd respondent has remarried and her husband is at present in Gulf, and she alongwith the minor child is residing with her parents at Parvaur in Kollam, is also canvassed by the counsel for the respondents to contend that the transfer of the case to Ernakulam as desired by the petitioner would cause severe hardship and irreparable injury to the respondents. 2. After hearing the counsel on both sides at length and considering the materials produced in the writ petition and Tr.P.C.83/09 3 also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, I find that more than anything, the convenience of the parties to the proceedings has to be given due weight and consideration in determining the question prayed for. Admittedly, O.S.No.40/1999 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Paravur and O.S.No.222/2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram relate to claims made over immovable properties situate within the jurisdiction of the respective court. Where O.S.No.1065/2007, a copy of the plaint thereof is produced as Annexure I, which is filed by the present petitioner, the relief claimed is to declare a deed as void and for perpetual injunction against the respondents from dealing with a schedule properties on the basis of a deed executed from the Paravur Sub Registry Office. The 1st defendant in that suit was the father of the petitioner and father-in-law of the 2nd respondent herein. At the time of hearing, it was brought to my notice that on the request of the 1st defendant, he was examined as a witness in the case and after recording his evidence, a few months later, he passed away on 20.1.2009. It is contended by the learned counsel Tr.P.C.83/09 4 for the respondents that the deed, which is sought to be declared as void in the suit was executed at Paravur, and, further, one of the suit properties scheduled is also situated within the jurisdiction of the Paravur Munsiff court. In that suit, the question of jurisdiction having been raised by the defendants an issue framed thereof was ordered to be heard as a preliminary issue. A review petition filed by the plaintiff seeking reconsideration of that order is stated to be now pending before that Court. Whatever that be, on the facts and circumstances presented in the case, it appears that driving the respondents in the petition to prosecute the suits filed by them at Paravur and Thiruvananthapuram alongwith the suit preferred by the petitioner at Ernakulam would cause them severe hardship and misery. Suits filed by them have been properly instituted before the courts of competent jurisdiction, and, further, having regard to the fact that the 2nd respondent is a minor aged seven years only, it may not be possible for the 2nd respondent to come over to Ernakulam on all hearing dates and defend herself in the proceedings of the three suits. That being so, I find the request for transfer as prayed for by Tr.P.C.83/09 5 the petitioner cannot be entertained. Petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009