ORDER:- This is a petition to transfer O.S. No.65 of 1972, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Chingleput, to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The transfer is prayed for only on the ground of convenience. The respondent herein has filed O.S.65 of 1972, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chingleput for getting possession of 52 cents of land purchased by him in R.S. 172/2 at Thiruvanmiyur village. In respect of this land, the petitioner submits that the same is part of the land purchased by him as early as 4-6-1929. Under that purchase, the petitioner has acquired 3 acres and 11 cents wherein the Samadhi of Pamban Swami is situated.

As per the allegation in the transfer petition, the petitioner has covered it with a fence wherein the Samadhi of Pamban Swamigal stands. It is further contended by the petitioner that both the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit are residents of Madras, that Thiruvanmiyur is nearer to the City Civil Court at Madras, rather than to the Chingleput Sub Court, that almost all the witnesses, both who know the facts and also worshippers therein are within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Madras, that the petitioner is aged more than 78 years suffering from blood pressure, that most of the witnesses who have to be taken for the purpose of giving evidence in the suit who are all residing at Madras are all aged persons, and that in the interests of all the parties concerned, it is better that the suit is transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras.

2. This transfer petition is opposed on the ground that the petition for transfer is belated, that settlement proceedings were conducted at Chingleput, wherein the petitioner also gave evidence, that the settlement proceedings ended in favour of the respondent herein, and as such, there is no merit in the defence put forth by the petitioner herein in the main suit and that the property is situate within the jurisdiction of the Chingleput Court, and as per S. 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, the suit has to be tried only at Chingleput Court.

3. I have been taken through the facts of the case in detail and also the affidavits filed by the respective parties herein. No doubt, Sec. 16, C.P.C. says that-

"Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits

(a) for the recovery of immoveable property with or without rent or profits;

(b) for the partition of immovable property;

(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immoveable property;

(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immoveable property;

(e) for compensation for wrong to immoveable property;

(f) for the recovery of moveable property actually under distraint or attachment. shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate."

There is no difficulty in appreciating the provisions of Sec. 16, and also the correctness of the suit filed before the Chingleput Court. But the transfer is prayed for only under Sec. 24, C.P.C. Sec. 24 gives general power of transfer and withdrawal. It states?

"On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without, such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any, stage- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial and disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn."

Thus, it is clear, Sec. 24 is wide enough to confer powers upon the High Court and the District Court for the pur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document