IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 286 of 2009() ------------------------- OS.275/2009 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER/3RD DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.275/2009: -------------------- SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. KUNJAMMU HAJI, AGED 57 YEARS, MERCHANT, CHERIYATH HOUSE, THOZHUVANNUR AMSOM, AMSOM, DESOM, BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.275/09: --------------- 1. KADALAI HUSSAIN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KADALAI AHAMMED, MERCHANT, KADALAI HOUSE, P.O., VALAVANNUR, VALAVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM. 2. A.V. SATHAR, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 47 YEARS, MERCHANT, WELCARE HOSPITAL MERCY JUNCTION, PALLIPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM , PALAKKAD. 3. P.V. MANAF, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, MERCHANT, WELCARE HOSPITAL MERCY JUNCTION, PALLIPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.S.SREEDEV FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.2934/09 IN Tr.P.(C).286/2009 DISMISSED. 11.1.2010 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).NO.286 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Petition for transfer is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.275 of 2009 on the fie of the Sub Court, Tirur. Suit is one for damages and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents are co-defendants. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has claimed damages alleging that on false representations made by the defendants in the suit, petitioner and 2nd and 3rd respondents, producing a forged document before the income tax authorities, he had been summoned to that office and questioned and thereby he had suffered injury by the acts committed by the defendants. Transfer petition has been filed contending that the defendants are carrying out commercial activities within Palakkad and also that the cause of auction for the institution of the suit arose at that place and not at Tirur, where the suit TPC.286/09 2 had been instituted. Petitioner has therefore sought for transfer of the suit to the Sub Court, Palakkad. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has entered appearance. In the transfer petition, this Court is not expected to go into the question of jurisdiction based on the cause of auction or the residence of the parties. If at all the petitioner/3rd defendant has any case that the suit has not been instituted in the proper court where it should have been instituted, it is open to him to raise such challenges before the court where the suit had been instituted. Prima facie on the materials produced and submissions made where it is shown that the suit has been filed to claim damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiffs and also that the petitioner/3rd defendant is having a residence within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit had been instituted, I find no merit in the transfer petition and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp