IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22807 of 2008(M) -------------------------- OP.219/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY OS.456/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. CHANDRAMOHANAN, SHANTHA NIVAS, THILANNUR, THAZHE CHOVVA, KANNUR. 2. RAJEEVAN, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- ANAND LAKSHMAN, HIGH LAND, THILANNUR, CHOVVA.P.O, KANNUR. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22807 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.456 of 2006, on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Kannur. It is a suit for partition. O.S.No.301 of 2008 was filed by third defendant in O.S.No.456 of 2006 for fixation of the boundary. Third defendant therein, who is the respondent herein, thereafter filed O.P.No.219 of 2008 before District Court, Thalassery, under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer O.S.No.456 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein to Principal Munsiff Court, Kannur, where O.S.No.301 of 2008 is pending. Ext.P6, an application for stay of O.S.No.456 of 2006, was also filed. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash Ext.P5 order as an abuse of process of court and for a direction to the Munsiff to dispose of Ext.P1 suit. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that O.S.No.456 of 2006 is a suit for partition and though respondent was W.P.(C) No.22807/2008 2 impleaded as the third defendant, no relief was sought as against him and O.S.No.301 of 2008 filed by the respondent for fixation of the boundary has nothing to do with the suit for partition filed by the petitioner, and, therefore, suits are not to be tried jointly and hence no transfer is warranted and even though petitioners appeared before the District Court in the transfer petition, an order of stay was granted, and in such circumstances, Ext.P5 proceedings are to be quashed. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through Exts.P1 and P4 claims and Ext.P5, copy of the petition for transfer, I cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel that Ext.P5 petition is to be quashed. It is a petition filed by the respondent, who is one of the defendants in Ext.P1 suit, for transfer of that suit to the other court, where a suit filed by the respondent is pending. It is for the learned District Judge to decide whether a transfer is to be ordered or not. It cannot be said that District court has no jurisdiction to decide that question under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. In such circumstances, the prayer for quashing Ext.P5 cannot be granted. W.P.(C) No.22807/2008 3 5. But there is force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that suit for partition in respect of plaint schedule property in O.S.No.456 of 2006 has nothing to do with the suit for fixation of the boundary of the neighbouring property. The question of actual identity of the property is to be determined only at the time of final proceedings. In such circumstances, learned District Judge, Thalassery, is directed to dispose of O.P.No.219 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned District Judge is also directed to dispose Ext.P6 application for stay without further delay. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.