IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 96 of 2010() ------------------------ OS.19/2010 of SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. VARGHESE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT KOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTIKUNNU, CHEMPU, VAIKOM. 2. SEBASTIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT KOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTIKUNNU, CHEMPU, VAIKOM. 3. THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT KOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTIKUNNU, CHEMPU, VAIKOM. 4. MATHAI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT KOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTIKUNNU, CHEMPU, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA SMT.D.SARITHA SMT.M.K.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. JOHN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.XAVIER, RESIDING AT KALATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, OCHAMTHURUTH.P.O, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. SURESH GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT NAVARATNA APARTMENT, B-5, BAGYATHARA LANE, PALARIVATTOM.P.O, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE FOR R1 & 2 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.96 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010. ORDER Petitioners before me are defendants in O.S.No.19 of 2010 (though, in the docket and the petition for transfer they are described as plaintiffs in the suit which counsel for petitioners also admit, is a mistake). They seek transfer of O.S.No.19 of 2010 from the court of learned Sub Judge, Kottayam to the Sub Court at Ernakulam. That is a suit for return of advance money and other reliefs filed by the respondents/plaintiffs allegedly due on account of petitioners failing to comply with an agreement for sale of their property. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners that properties in respect of which specific performance was prayed are situate in the Manakunnam Village in Kanayannoor Taluk and Chempu Village in Vaikom Taluk falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Ernakulam and Sub Court, Kottayam, respectively. Respondent had earlier filed O.S.No.738 of 2008 in the Sub Court , Ernakulam in respect of the same matter seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale. It would appear that there was an attempt to settle the matter in the Adalath. But, consequent to the alleged failure of petitioners to perform the agreement, respondents filed the present suit for recovery of advance money and other reliefs. Learned counsel for petitioners state that since both parties are residing in Ernakulam District it is the convenience of both parties that the suit is transferred to Sub Court at Ernakulam. Tr.P.(C) No.96/2010 2 2. Respondents have no serious objection to the request. Though learned counsel for respondents stated that in O.S.No.738 of 2008 petitioners had raised an objection as to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Petitioners admit that Sub Court, Ernakulam also has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for return of advance money and other reliefs. Admission made by petitioners is recorded. Petitioners shall not contend that the Sub Court, Ernakulam has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.S.No.19 of 2010 pending in the Sub Court, Kottayam is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Principal Sub Court, .Ernakulam for trial and disposal. ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. I.A.No.876 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks