IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 74 of 2009() ------------------------------------- OP(INDIGENT).22/2008 of SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- JOEL JOJI, S/O. JOJI JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PLATHARA HOUSE, VAZHOOR.P.O, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SINU JOJI. BY ADV.MR.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE, AMRITA LANE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. DR. MOHAN K. ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, DEPARTMENT OF PAEDIATRIC SURGERY, AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE, AMRITA LANE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY. R1 BY ADVS. MR.K.SRIKUMAR MR.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON 23/03/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(C). No. 74 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of I.O.P. No.22 of 2008 pending before the Sub Court, Ernakulam to the competent court at Kottayam. 2. The parents of Joel Joji found their child very sick. At the age of two and a half years, he developed urinary problems. Initially the child was taken to Medical Centre at Kottayam for treatment. The doctors, who attended to the child opined that the child needs a surgery. They have referred the child to Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Edappally and recommended Dr. Mohan K. Abraham, who is an expert in that particular field. The child was admitted in the said hospital on 8.8.2006 and the doctor named above attended to the child and recommended a Tr.P.C. 74/2009. 2 major surgery. It was done. After surgery when they returned home, the child developed fever and they had taken back the child to the hospital on 5.12.2006. The child was admitted as inpatient for a few days. Things did not improve. Suffice it to say that later on the child was treated in yet another hospital and the illness of the child persisted. The petitioners blamed the doctor at Amrita Institute for not having done the surgery properly. They instituted a suit for damages against the Institute and the doctor. 3. As the parents of Joel Joji are poor, they sought permission of the court to institute the suit as indigent persons and that is pending. 4. It is pointed out that the parents the child though employed got meagre salary and they find it difficult to meet both ends meet. They say that it is extremely difficult for them to travel to Ernakulam to attend the court on the frequent posting dates. They pray that the proceedings be transferred to a court at Kottayam, which Tr.P.C. 74/2009. 3 would be of considerable help and convenience to them and save them from incurring expenses. 5. The petition is opposed by the respondents, who pointed out that there is no justification for the transfer sought for by the petitioner. The courts at Kottayam have no jurisdiction and there is no question of transfer of the case. It is also pointed out that even going by the averments in the petition, the parents of the child are employed and they are deriving income. There is nothing to show that their claim they are in financial difficulties is true. Moreover, being a civil case, it is not necessary for them to attend the court on all posting dates and therefore the claim has no basis. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that he was not relying on any legal principles for seeking a transfer, but was seeking the mercy of this court to exercise its jurisdiction in a sympathetic manner so as to enable the petitioners to conduct the case properly and effectively. Though the parents are employed, the income Tr.P.C. 74/2009. 4 derived is very meager and it is extremely difficult for them with that income to come over to Ernakulam and conduct the case. Moreover, they will have to pay the fee to their Advocate also. It is therefore prayed that this court may consider the matter in a lenient and sympathetic manner. 7. True going by the averments in the petition and in the plaint the court at Kottayam cannot have jurisdiction in the matter. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parents of the child find it extremely difficult to come over to Ernakulam and to meet the expenses for the litigation. All that they have prayed for is for a transfer of the case to any court at Kottayam, so that they can appear before the court whenever it is needed. They have also stated that they will be able to meet their counsel quite often and get necessary advise in the matter. 8. Considering the above fact, it is felt that the request made is only just and reasonable. No particular infirmity or injury is caused to the respondents by the transfer. At any rate their appearance before the court Tr.P.C. 74/2009. 5 below is much less than that of the plaintiffs. Also financially they will not have any difficulties unlike the case of the petitioners. In the result, this petition is allowed and I.O.P. No.22 of 2008 and other proceedings pending before the Sub court, Ernakulam stands transferred to Additional Sub court, Kottayam for trial and disposal. Parties shall appear before the court below on 2.6.2010. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.