Purushothaman v. Maragadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.12.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tr.C.M.P.No.789 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.20046 of 2016 Purushothaman .. Petitioner Vs.

1. Maragadam

2. Jayalakshmi

3. Prabha

4. P.Babu

5. P.Ramesh

6. P.Murugan

7. P.Kannan, S/o Late Perumal Naidu

8. P.Usha

9. P.Vasanthamma

10. Vishnu Vijayakumar

11. Suresh

12. Suseela Kesavan (died) Jayaraman (died)

13. Amudha

14. Santhi @ Sasikala, D/o Kesavan

15. Ramanujam

16. Selvam

17. Jagadesan

18. Sasikala

19. Kannan, S/o Ramanujam

20. Raja

21. Rajendran

22. Manickam

23. Santhi, W/o Late Jayaraman

24. Minor Roopasree, D/o Late Jayaraman (Respondents 4 to 24 remained ex-parte in the Court below) .. Respondents Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to withdraw the I.A.No.216 of 2014 in O.S.No.37 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Uthangarai and transfer the same to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri or Vellore.

For petitioner : Ms.P.Srividhya

ORDER

This Tr.C.M.P. is filed by the eleventh defendant in a suit for partition. A preliminary decree had been passed in the partition suit. It is also stated that appeal has been preferred against the said preliminary decree, which is pending before the District Court, Krishnagiri. In the meanwhile, a Commissioner has been appointed in the final decree proceedings, who is to file his report today (16.12.2016). Now, the petitioner has come up with the present Tr.C.M.P. on the apprehension that he has appeared before the Court below and that he would not be given an opportunity to file his objections to the Commissioner's report.

Such an apprehension is irrelevant at this stage and unwarranted, as the Commissioner has not even filed his report and the petitioner has also not made any request to the learned Judge to file his objections to the Commissioner's report. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case has not been heard properly. A mere bald allegation like this, will not entitle the petitioner for transfer of the case from one Court to the other. However, it is made clear that when once the Commissioner files his report and the same is served on the petitioner, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file his objections to the said report and the said objections may be considered at the time of passing of the final decree. With the above observations and directions, this Tr.C.M.P. is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cs Copy to

1. The Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai.

2. The Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.

3. The Subordinate Judge, Vellore.

+1cc to Mr.P. Srividhya, Advocate, S.R.No.73367 ssi(CO) md(09/01/2017) Tr.C.M.P.No.789 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/