Mr.Byju Nizeth Paul v. A.Johnson & Ors.

For petitioner: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior counsel for Mr.S.Ashok Kumar.For respondents: Mr.Venkatachalapathy, Senior counsel, for Mr.S.Conscious Elango for R.1 Mr.A.R.Nixon for R.2 and R.5 Mr.Kalyanasundaram, for Mr.G.Sethuraman, for R.3 & R.4O R D E RThe petitioner / first defendant has filed this transfer petitionpraying for issuance of an order by this Court to withdraw the suitO.S.No.6657 of 2008 pending on the file of learned VIII AssistantJudge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and to transfer the same to anyother competent Court in Kanyakumari District.2. The case of the petitioner / first defendant is that thecause of action in the plaint is against the fifth defendant and thatthe cause of action has arisen at Nagercoil in Kanyakumari Districtand that the plaintiff and all the defendants except the seconddefendant are residing in Kanyakumari District and inasmuch as theentire cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction ofKanyakumari District, the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City CivilCourt, Chennai has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suitand therefore, prays for transferring the suit O.S.No.6657 of 2008from the file of the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,Chennai and to transfer the same to any other competent Court inKanyakumari District.3. The stand of respondents 3 and 4 is that the fifthrespondent, the Bishop, who is the spiritual head of the KanyakumariDiocese and its administrative head left for Lambath Conference atLondon between 08.07.2008 and 10.08.2008 and has remained absentduring the period in Kanyakumari Diocese and though he has appointedthe Vice President of Kanyakumari Diocese in his capacity as aPresident of the Diocese as Commissary, it is invalid as theappointment is not with the approval of the Executive Committee ofthe Diocese as per Clause 14 Chapter V of the Constitution of theChurch of South India and as per C.S.I. Kanyakumari District DioceseConstitution and the Vice President as per clause 62.5 of the C.S.I.Constitution has powers to act for the President during his absenceand therefore, the Vice President and other officers convened aSpecial Executive Committee meeting of the Diocese on 12.07.2008 toaccept his resignation of the post of Treasurer appointed in theplace of Treasurer Dr.Moses, who resigned to go abroad for hispersonal affair and on his return, he asked to resign enabling theDiocese to appoint him or any other person as Treasurer, since it hasbeen a stop gap arrangement, he has been re-appointed as Treasurer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the Executive Committee has passed this resolution.4. Added further, on 02.08.2008, the Vice President and otherOfficers convened the regular Executive Committee meeting to resolvecertain pending issues and the Executive Committee passed five or sixresolutions that have been moved in the regular meeting and that thefifth respondent – Bishop on his return from abroad, has stayed thetwo proceedings of the Executive Committee by his stay order dated11.08.2008 by virtue of his power under Clause 62.4 of theKanyakumari Diocese Constitution and that a copy of the same has beensent to the second respondent Moderator and that the first respondentherein viz., A.Johnson initiated suit O.S.No.4468 of 2008 on the fileof the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai todeclare the stay order of the Bishop dated 11.08.2008 as null andvoid and to restrain the other defendants in the suit viz., the otherrespondents and the petitioner herein from interfering with thefunctions of the present Executive Committee and that an order ofstatus quo has been granted in the interim application against whichrespondents 2 and 5 have filed C.R.P.Nos.3294 and 3295 of 2008 andthey have been allowed by this Court remanding the matter anddirected I.A.Nos.16120 and 16121 of 2008 to be disposed of afreshwithin a time frame.5. It is significant to point out that when I.A.Nos.16120 and16121 of 2008 have come up for hearing on 06.11.2008, at that time,the petitioner / first defendant has filed this present transferpetition praying for transfer of the suit O.S.No.6657 of 2008 fromthe file of learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennaito any other competent Court in Kanyakumar District.6. The substance of the contention of respondents 3 and 4 isthat as per Chapter XI Rule 4 of the C.S.I. Constitution, wheneverany legal proceedings are to be instituted, the same shall beinstituted only in such Courts within whose territorial jurisdictionthe office of Diocese or of the Synod and / or its Secretariate atthat time situated and that the Secretariate or Head Office of theSynod is situated at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, within theterritorial jurisdiction of this Court and the Moderator seconddefendant / respondent is impleaded as the Highest Officer of theSynod and hence, the present suit is maintainable in law within thejurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai and that respondents 3and 4, being the Executive Administration Body, have to function asan elected body and since the fifth respondent is the spiritualleader of K.K.Diocese being its administrative head, it will beappropriate that Court in Chennai within which the second respondentis situated and is approached to resolve the disputes and rightlythe suit has been filed against the first respondent herein, etc.,and as per Civil Procedure Code, the issue of jurisdiction is to betried by the Court in which the suit has been filed and therefore,respondents 3 and 4 pray for dismissal of this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The first respondent / plaintiff has filed M.P.No.2 of 2008praying to vacate the stay granted in M.P.No.1 of 2008 dated16.10.2008 and to dismiss the transfer petition inter alia statingthat the first respondent herein has suppressed the material factsthat C.R.P.Nos.3294 and 3295 of 2008 filed by respondents 2 and 5praying to set aside the order dated 19.09.2008 in I.A.Nos.16120 and16121 of 2008 in O.S.No.6657 of 2008 on the file of the learned VIIIAssistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and that both the revisionpetitions were allowed by this Court on 30.09.2008 on the basis thatthe trial Court has not passed the order of injunction assigning thereason and among other things, this Court has directed the trialCourt to take up the applications and consider the same on merits andin accordance with law, within fifteen days from the date of filingof the counter by the revision petitioner and that to defeat thedirections given by this Court, by suppressing the civil revisionpetitions and order passed thereto, the petitioner / first defendanthas filed this transfer petition on the same grounds that have beenraised in the civil revision petition and not accepted by this Court,etc.8. The pith and substance of the stand of the first respondent /plaintiff (petitioner / first respondent in M.P.No.2 of 2008) is thathe has filed a memo before the trial Court giving up the petitionerin this transfer petition inasmuch as no relief is claimed againsthim and therefore, the transfer petition has to be dismissed by thisCourt.9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant/seconddefendant urges that except the second respondent and otherrespondents/defendants at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and thatthe fourth defendant viz., the Executive Committee of KanyakumariDiocese is having office at Nagercoil and that the secondrespondent/second defendant is within the jurisdiction of the CityCivil Court, Chennai and that no cause of action has been attributedto the second respondent/second defendant and that the secondrespondent/second defendant is nothing to do with the cause of actionof the plaint and that the second respondent/second defendant Churchof South India, Synod, Chennai-14 is only a formal party so as tonumber the plaint before the City Civil Court and only for thepurpose of directing the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court,Chennai the second respondent/second defendant has been arrayed asone of the parties to the suit and that there is no territorialjurisdiction for the City Civil Court, Chennai to take the plaint onfile and therefore prays for allowing the Transfer CivilMiscellaneous Petition by means of directing the withdrawal of thesuit O.S.No.6657 of 2008 pending on the file of the VIII AssistantCity Civil Court, Chennai and to transfer the same to any othercompetent Court in Kanyakumari District.10. The learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submits that where a Court has no jurisdiction it cannot take up thematter and therefore the order passed by a Court of law having nojurisdiction is a nullity in the eye of law. According to the learnedcounsel for the petitioner/first defendant, a perusal of the plaintin O.S.No.6657 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Assistant City CivilCourt, Chennai reveals that in the list of documents filed underOrder 7 Rule 14(2) of the Civil Procedure Code in the plaint, thereis no document connecting the second respondent/second defendant andas such the second respondent/second defendant is an unnecessaryparty.11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of hiscontention that where a Court has no jurisdiction in regard to asubject matter of suit it cannot take up the cause or matter and anorder passed therein is a nullity cites the decision HARSHAD CHIMANLAL MODI V. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANOTHER, (2005) 7 SUPREME COURTCASES at page No. 791, wherein it is inter alia held that 'objections as to territorial and pecuniaryjurisdiction have to be taken at the earliest possibleopportunity, and in any case before settlement of issues,and cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage –However, where a Court has no jurisdiction over subjectmatter of suit it cannot take up the cause or matter, and anorder passed therein is a nullity and invalidity of a nulldecree can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced asa foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution orin collateral proceedings, etc.,'He also relies on the decision ALCHEMIST LTD. AND ANOTHER V. STATEBANK OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS, (2007) 11 SUPREME COURT CASES at pageNo.335, whereby the Honourable Supreme Court has held that'Whether the facts averred by writ petitionerconstitute a part of cause of action has to be determined onthe basis of question whether such facts constitute amaterial, essential or integral part of the cause of actionand in determining the said question, the substance of thematter and not the form thereof has to be considered."Moreover in the aforesaid decision at Page No.345 in paragraph No.33,it is held as follows:-"....33. Allowing the appeal and setting aside theorder of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that none ofthe facts pleaded by A constituted a cause of action.'Facts which have no bearing with the lis or thedispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause ofaction so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ concerned." (Adani Exports Ltd. case (2002) 1 SCC 567: AIR2002 SC 126:JT (2001) 9 SC 162, SCC pp.573-74, para 17.)'Yet another decision UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. ADANI EXPORTS LTD.AND ANOTHER, (2002) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 567 at Page No.568 isrelied on the side of the petitioner/first defendant whereunder it isinter alia observed that 'Facts which have no bearing with the lis or thedispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause ofaction so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the courtconcerned. Applying this principle one would see that noneof the facts pleaded by the respondents falls into thecategory of bundle of facts which would constitute a causeof action giving rise to a dispute which could conferterritorial jurisdiction on the Courts at Ahmedabad.'12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondentrelies on the decision of this Court GEETHA V. SEERALAN, 2001 (2)TNLJ at Page No. 130, wherein it is held that ' Presence of party is not necessary prior to the dateof trial and that the distance is not a necessary factor inthe matrimonial original proceedings where a transfer of anoriginal petition sought for from one Sub Court to anotherSub Court.'He further prays into service the order of this Court in C.R.P.NPDNo.3505 of 2007 dated 07.11.2007 between C.S.I. Diocese ofKanyakumari represented by its Secretary for himself and on behalf ofall the members of Diocese and G.Sam Edwin Raj whereby and whereunderin paragraph Nos.11 and 13 it is observed as follows:-'...11. On the face of it, I do not see any reason tointerfere with the suit pending in the Courts below at thisstage. The points raised by Mr.C.Ravichandran are alldefences available in the suit. As it is correctly pointedout by the learned counsel for the respondents, when oncethe trial Court has granted an order of injunction as earlyas on 06.09.2007, it is known as to how the revisionpetitioners have not taken any steps to file an applicationto vacate the order of injunction. When such an effectiveremedy is available, it is not known as to why they haveapproached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India for striking off the plaint on the grounds whichare stated above....13. Regarding the jurisdictional issue, prima facieI am satisfied that the second defendant is situated atChennai and on the basis of which it could be seen that theCity Civil Court at Chennai has jurisdiction to decide the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suit. In view of the said fact, I do not see any reason tointerfere at this stage. Further, for the purpose ofstriking off the plaint, Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C.contemplates three instances, which reads as follows:Striking out pleadings- The Court may at any stage ofthe proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matterin any pleading-(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous orvexatious or(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarass or delay thefair trial of the suit, or(c) which is otherwise an abuse of process of theCourt.'13. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits thatSection 24 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the general powerof transfer and withdrawal in respect of the High Court or theDistrict Court and that as per the Constitution of Synod, if thesecond defendant or the Bishop or the Secretary is in a particularplace, the Court in which the office is situated will havejurisdiction to deal with the matter and that the Transfer CivilMiscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner/first defendant is notthe solution or the relief and that in the order of Civil RevisionPetition Nos.3294 and 3295 of 2008 dated 30.09.2008 at paragraphNos.8 to 10, it is among other things observed as follows:-'...8. It is always open to the revision petitioners tofile their counter affidavit in both the applicationsimmediately and on such counter being filed, the trial Courtshall take up the applications and consider the same onmerits and in accordance with law within 15 days from thedate of filing of the counters by the revision petitioners.The revision petitioners are directed to file their counteraffidavits within a week from the date of receipt of copy ofthis order.9. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions areallowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions arealso closed.10. However, it is represented by the learned counselfor the first respondent that as on date, the presentexecutive Committee is functioning as per the Order dated19.09.2008 and the same may be permitted to function tillthe disposal of the interim application. The learned seniorcounsel for the revision petitioners has no objection forthe above request made by the learned counsel for the firstrespondent. Hence, I direct the present executive committeeto continue the functioning until orders are passed on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ merits in I.A.No.16121 of 2008.'and that the territorial jurisdiction plea has been raised and thesame has not been accepted and this order passed by this Court cannotbe modified by filing a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition andmoreover, the first respondent/Plaintiff in the suit has filed a memodated 06.11.2008 before the trial Court in O.S.No.6657 of 2008stating that 'no relief is prayed for against the first defendant andthat the first respondent/first defendant is hereby given up from theabove suit and this may be recorded' and therefore the Transfer CivilMiscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner/first defendant hasnow become an infructuous one and therefore prays for dismissal ofthe Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.14. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the thirdrespondent contends that the first respondent in C.M.P.No.2 of2008/petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.428 of 2008 has not appeared beforethis Court in the Civil Revision Petition PD Nos.3294 and 3295 of2008, though he is a party to the Civil Revision Petitions andtherefore the filing of the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition byhim is nothing an abuse of process of law and moreover he cannotsuccumb the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code.15. The learned counsel for the third respondent has invited theattention of this Court to Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Codewhich recognise the territorial jurisdiction of a Court of law, amongother things, wherever the cause of action wholly are in part arises.In a restricted way, 'cause of action' refers to the circumstancesforming the infraction of the right or immediate occasion for theaction. In a wider way, it means the essential condition for themaintainability of the suit, including not only the infraction ofright but the infraction coupled with the right itself. In ancompendious way, it refers to every fact by which it will benecessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed, in order tosupport his right to the Judgment of the Court. However it is left tobe decided in each and every case as to where the cause of actionarises.16. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for thethird and fourth respondents that as per the Constitution and RulesC.S.I. Kanyakumari Diocese Clause 62.5 speaks of the functions of theVice-President and that he has independent powers as per Rules and inthe absence of the President or at his request during sessions of theCouncil and/or the Executive Committee, he shall act for thePresident and in short, in the absence of the President, the Vice-President can act without any limitation and the two meetings havebeen convened and that a special meeting has been held on 12.07.2008to consider the resignation of Dharmarao, the Secretary and Treasurerof the third and fourth respondents and another resolution has beenpassed on 02.08.2008 and some other six ordinary resolutions have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been passed and the Bishop on returning from London, he has passedthe stay proceedings dated 11.08.2008 and that each of the Bishop ofDiocese 21 are members of the Synod and 21 Diocese are controlled bySynod and without the Bishop no suit can go on and that Synod is theproper party and Order 9 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code speaks ofmis joinder and non joinder of parties and that the Synod is incollusion with the Bishop and that the second defendant is situatedat Chennai and that the part of cause of action is arisen at Madrasand therefore the suit O.S.No.6657 of 2008 filed by the firstrespondent/Plaintiff before the learned VIII Assistant City CivilJudge, Chennai is maintainable.17. Countering the submissions, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code refersto the unrestricted power of the Honourable High Court to transferany proceeding from one Court to another and if the petitioner isrequired to raise the issue of cause of action before the trialCourt, then Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code will not find aplace in the Civil Procedure Code and that the cause of action mustbe with reference to the relief sought for and no relief can beclaimed against the Synod and any amount of concerned will not conferjurisdiction on a particular Court to decide the matter if that Courthas no jurisdiction and that the Transfer Civil Miscellaneouspetitioner herein has been cited as the second respondent in C.R.P.PD Nos.3294 and 3295 of 2008 and that the question of jurisdictionhas been raised by some other party and the same has not been put inissue in the Civil Revision Petitions and that the petitioner in theTransfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, who has been cited as thesecond respondent in C.R.P. PD Nos.3294 and 3295 of 2008 has notbeen issued with the notice.18. The learned counsel for the second and fifth respondentscontends that the memo dated 06.11.2008 filed by the firstrespondent/Plaintiff to the effect that no relief is prayed foragainst the first defendant and therefore he is given up from thesuit cannot be enforced in the eye of law and that the C.S.I. is anunregistered body and that the first defendant is an interested partyand that the memo has no relevance at all in connection with theTransfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.19. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that thejurisdiction issue can be raised before the trial Court and that theproper forum is the trial Court where the jurisdiction issue can beagitated and therefore prays for dismissal of the Transfer CivilMiscellaneous Petition.20. The learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents hasreferred to Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code in and by which aCourt of law is to try a Civil Suit unless the same is barred andsubmits that it is the settled law that the jurisdiction of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ particular Court is to be determined on the basis of allegations inthe plaint and that the averments in the plaint will have to be bornein mind besides the substance of the relief sought for.21. At this stage, this Court significantly points out that inthe decision NAZIRUDDEEN V. P.ANNAMALAI, AIR 1978 MADRAS at pageNo.410 it is held that ' the question as to jurisdiction ofparticular Court decided without taking evidence is illegal'. Furtherin the decision MOHAN RAWALE V. DAMODAR TATYABA, (1994) 2 SupremeCourt Cases 392, at Page No.397, the Honourable Supreme Court hasobserved that ' so long as the claim discloses some cause of actionor raises some questions fit to be tried, mere fact that case is weakand not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out'. Moreoverin the decision D.RAMACHANDRAN V. R.V.JANAKIRAMAN AND OTHERS, (1999)3 Supreme Court Cases 267 at page No.272 the Honourable Supreme Courthas held that 'plaint cannot be rejected partially by dissecting thepleadings in several parts and holding that one of them does notdisclose a cause of action'. Also in the decision SERAJUDIN & CO.,V. UNION OF INDIA, 1996 A I H C at page No.2288, it is inter aliaheld that ' the Court within whose jurisdiction the order iscommunicated will have jurisdiction to try the suit' (R26 of Minesand Minerals Concessions Rules 1960). It is also well settledprinciple of law that whether facts constituting cause of action aretrue or not are a mixed question of fact and law and therefore thesame require taking of evidence.22. The learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant (inTr.C.M.P.428/08) brings it to the notice of this Court the orderpassed by this Court in C.R.P. PD Nos.2527 to 2529 of 2008 betweenThe Diocese of Tirunelveli (C.S.I.) represented by its Bishop, BishopStowe, Post Box No.180, No.16, North High Ground Road, Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli 627 002 and The Church of South India represented by itsModerator, No.5, Whites Road, Royapetah, Chennai 600 014 and 59others and C.R.P PD Nos.2601 and 2602 of 2008 between A. Devadoss andothers and Issac Vetri Selvan and others wherein at paragraph Nos.45and 46, it is observed as follows:-"45. There is deliberate suppression of materialfacts by the respondents/plaintiffs, apart from forumshopping and a total contradictory plea for the allegedcause of action to file the suit, which leads to theinference of fraud being played on the Court below by therespondents/plaintiffs. The impugned orders have beenpassed against the revision petitioners in C.R.P. Nos.2601and 2602 of 2008, though specific allegations were raisedagainst them by the respondent/plaintiffs in the plaint,but, without impleading them as necessary parties , behindtheir back, hence, the order is affected by non-joinderparties, behind their back, hence, the order is affectedshow forum shopping. In the light of the decisions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred to above, I am of the view that the aforesaidimpugned orders passed by the Court below in I.A.No.6990 of2008 and I.A.No.9666 of 2008 are expacie illegal andwithout jurisdiction and fraud has been played on the partof the Court below and therefore the affected parties canmaintain the revision petition by invoking Article 227 ofthe Constitution of Aindia, which is not legally precludedon the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore,the revision petitions in C.R.P. (PD) Nos.2529, 2601 and2602 of 2008 are allowed and the impugned order, dated30.04.2008 passed in I.A.No.6990 of 2008 granting statusquo as on 30.04.2008 and subsequent order, dated 21.07.2008passed in I.A.No.9666 of 2008 granting status quo ante onthe date prior to 21.12.2007 are set aside. I am of theconsidered view that Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Constitutionof Diocess of Tirunelveli is not applicable on the factsand circumstances, directing the parties to maintain statusquo, prior to 21.12.2007.46. With the above observations, C.R.P. (PD) Nos.2527and 2528 of 2008 are dismissed and C.R.P. (PD) Nos.2529,2601 and 2602 of 2008 are allowed. The trial Court isdirected to dispose the suit according to law on merits,within six months from the date of receipt of the copy ofthis order, without considering the findings of this Courtin this revision.'Also a reference is made to an order passed by this Court dated11.12.2007 in Application Nos.6913 and 1181 of 2007 and ApplicationNos. 7394 and 7396 of 2007 in C.S.No.942 of 2007 wherein at ParagraphNo.34 it is held as follows:-'34. In my considered view, mere existence of the Synodat Chennai would not confer jurisdiction upon the originalside of this Court. "Cause of action" means every factwhich becomes necessary for the plaintiff to prove iftraversed in order to support his right. "Every fact" doesnot mean every piece of evidence. It means substantialfacts and circumstances forming infringement of the right orimmediate occasion for the action. As discussed earlier,cause of action has substantially and materially arisen onlyin Thoothukudi. This Court will not assume jurisdictionmerely because the Synod is situated within the jurisdictionof this Court.'23. As far as the present suit O.S.No.6657 of 2008 filed by thefirst respondent/Plaintiff is concerned, in the cause of actionparagraph at Paragraph No.25 of the plaint, it is averred that 'thecause of action has arisen on 16.05.2008, the date of executivecommittee appointing the commission for settlement of election https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disputes, 12.7.2008, on 12.7.2008 date of special meeting of theexecutive committee, 02.08.2008 date of meeting of the executivecommittee, 11.8.2008 date of the proceedings of stay by the fifthdefendant and that the second defendant is within the jurisdiction ofthis Court.'24. On a careful consideration of the respective contentions,this Court is of the considered view that the firstrespondent/Plaintiff in the plaint in O.S.No.6657 of 2008 on the fileof the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in paragraph No.6 hascategorically inter alia averred that '....in the circumstances thesecond defendant, who is duty bound to interfere with the illegalactivities of the fifth defendant so as to restore the soundadministration and financial management, for the reasons best knownis not taking any action, etc.,' and viewed in this perspective, thisCourt opines that the question of jurisdiction of a particular Courtwill have to be necessarily decided based on oral and documentaryevidence to be adduced by the parties as the case may be andtherefore at this stage it cannot be said that the second defendanthas nothing to do with the cause of action of the plaint and furtherin as much as the first respondent/defendant has filed a memo dated06.11.2008 before the trial Court stating that no relief is claimedas against the first defendant and that the first defendant is givenup in the suit, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that itis not possible for this Court to order for withdrawal of suitO.S.No.6657 of 2008 pending on the file of VIII Assistant, City CivilCourt, Chennai etc., and consequently this Transfer CivilMiscellaneous Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed toprevent the aberration of justice and to promote the substantialcause of justice. Considering the facts and circumstances of thecase, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.vri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe VIII Asst. City Civil Court,Chennai.+ 1 CC To Mr.A.R.Nixon, Advocate SR NO.4747+ 1 CC To Mr.C.Emalias, Advocate SR NO.4692+ 1 CC To Mr.S.Ashok Kumar. Advocate SR NO.4856 TR.C.M.P.428 OF 2008mbs(co)pmk/5.2.2009.