IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 329 of 2011() ------------------------- OS.91/2010 Of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA TO SUBCOURT PAYYANUR .................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHEESHAN, S/O.BALAN, EDATHILE VALAPPIL, MAMBALAM, PAYYANUR, THALIPPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) SRI.S.MANU SRI.K.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JENY SUSAN JOSEPH, D/O JOSEPH PHILIP, PLOT NO.50 STATE-2, T.P.NAGAR, R.S.P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689111. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SU TPC.NO.329/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.91/2010 OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA. P2: WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.91/2010 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT/PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL. / TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.329 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.91 of 2010 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla requesting to transfer of that suit to the Sub Court, Payyannoor. 2. O.S.No.91 of 2010 is filed by the respondent for return of money she claims to have advanced to the petitioner under an agreement for sale of 192.25 cents in Vellur Village, within the local limits of the Sub Court, Payyannoor. According to the respondent, petitioner claiming to be the owner of that property agreed to sell the same to the respondent and received advance sale consideration. But during negotiation, respondent learned that the property belongs to one P.V.Divakaran who had not authorised petitioner to sell the property. Respondent therefore wanted return of the money (allegedly) paid to the petitioner as advance sale consideration. 3. Though according to the learned Senior Advocate, learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it is not necessary for me to go into that issue in this proceeding since the request in this proceeding is to transfer O.S.No.91 of 2010 to the court of learned Sub Judge, Payyannoor invoking power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Tr.P(C)No.329/2011 2 4. According to the petitioner, himself and the witnesses to be examined in the case are residing within the local limits of Sub Court, Payyannoor. But I must bear in mind that the respondent who is a lady residing at Thiruvalla has to travel the long distance from Thiruvalla to Payyannoor to prosecute the suit if the request for transfer is allowed. I am not inclined to think that for the convenience of petitioner and his witnesses, respondent who is a lady and who is the master of the suit must be asked to travel all the distance from Thiruvalla to Payyannoor. I do find reason to allow the request for transfer invoking power under Section 24 of the Code. Transfer petition is dismissed. I.A.No.2241 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks