High Court · 2025

Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :07.11.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARTr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025Tr.CMP.No.1145 of 2025:The Diocese of Chengalpattu of Roman Catholic Churches,Rep by property Administrator,Bishop's House, Thimmavaram, Chengalpet.... PetitionerVs.1.E.Martin Susairaj2.E.Martin Arulraj3.E.Martin Thomas Raj4.C.Anand5.A.Adaikalamary6.E.Jemma7.M.Vasanthakumari8.M.Sheeba9.M.Mary Sherly10.E.Mary11.T.Kuberan12.M.Elias...RespondentPRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to withdraw O.S.No.191 of 2023 from the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram and to transfer the same to the City Civil Court, Chennai.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025For Petitioner: M/s.Selvi GeorgeTr.CMP.No.1146 of 2025:1. The Diocese of Chengalpattu,Rep. by Rev.Fr.Shylock Stephen, property Administrator,Diocese of Chengalpattu,Kancheepuram Road, Thimmavaram,Chengalpattu – 603 101.2.Arulmigu Sagayamary Madha Church,(Unit of M/s.Diocese of Chengalpattu),Rep. by its Parish Priest, Rev.Fr.Amul Raj,Madhakoil Street,Panruti Village via Thenneri,Sriperumpudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District.... PetitionersVs.M.Elias ...RespondentPRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to withdraw O.S.No.43 of 2017 from the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram and to transfer the same to the City Civil Court, Chennai.For Petitioner: M/s.Selvi GeorgeTr.CMP.No.1147 of 2025:1. Rev.Fr.A.Cyril Raj,Bishop House, Thimmavaram,Chengalpattu.2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 20252.S.AmulrajArulmigu Sagayamary Madha Church,Madhakoil Street,Panruti Village via Thenneri,Sriperumpudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District.... PetitionersVs.M.Elias...RespondentPRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to withdraw O.S.No.154 of 2014 from the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram and to transfer the same to the City Civil Court, Chennai.For Petitioner: M/s.Selvi GeorgeTr.CMP.No.1148 of 2025:M/s.Arulmigu Sagayamary Madha Church,(Unit of M/s..Diocese of Chengalpattu of Roman Catholic Churches)Rep. by its Property Administrator.(Rev.Fr.A.Cyril Raj) removed as per order in I.A.No.852 of 2019).... PetitionerVs.M.Elias...RespondentPRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to withdraw O.S.No.193 of 2023 from the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram and to transfer the same to the City Civil Court, Chennai.3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025For Petitioner: M/s.Selvi GeorgeTr.CMP.No.1165 of 2025:M/s.Arulmigu Sagayamary Madha Church at PanrutiRep. by its Property Administrator,Diocese of Chengalpattu of Roman Catholic Churches,Bishop House, Thimmavaram, Chengalpattu.... PetitionerVs.1.M.Christuvaraj @ Krishnamurthy2.G.Nataraj Xavier @ Natarajan3.G.Sampath @ Amaladoss4.E.Martin Susairaj5.E.Martin Arulraj6.E.Martin Thomas Raj7.C.Anand8.A.Adaikalamary9.E.Jemma10.M.Vasanthakumari 11.M.Sheeba12.M.Mary Sherly13.E.Mary14.M.Elias...RespondentsPRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to withdraw O.S.No.195 of 2023 from the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram and to transfer the same to the City Civil Court, Chennai.For Petitioner: M/s.Selvi George4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025C O M M O N ORDERThese Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions in Tr.CMP.Nos.1145, 1146, 1147, 1148 and 1165 of 2025 are filed seeking transfer of O.S.Nos.191 of 2023, 43 of 2017, 154 of 2014, 193 of 2023 and 195 of 2023 from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram to the file of City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The O.S.No.191 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to conduct and manage Christian Religious worships and festivals in all its churches from 'A' scheduled property and church existing in 'B' schedule property and a consequential order for injunction. 3. The O.S.No.43 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner seeking declaration that sale deed dated 03.06.2003 was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The petitioner also sought for a declaration that the first plaintiff in the suit is the absolute owner of the property and for permanent injunction. The suit in O.S.No.154 of 2014 was filed by the respondent in the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025transfer application against the petitioner seeking declaration that the respondent is the absolute owner of the property and for consequential injunction. The suit in O.S.No.193 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking delivery of vacant possession of 'B' schedule property to the petitioner and for injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of 'C' schedule property. The suit in O.S.No.195 of 2023 has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3, the members of petitioner's church against other respondents seeking declaration that plaintiffs therein and other members of petitioner's church are entitled to gather and worship in suit 'A' schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to peaceful gathering and worshipping in 'A' schedule properties and committing disturbances. This Court in CRP.No.702 of 2025 directed the trial Court to conduct joint trial in all the suits and dispose of the same within four months from the date of order (i.e., 27.02.2025). 4. According to the petitioner, in the joint trial, evidence was recorded in O.S.No.154 of 2014 filed by the contesting respondent, M.Elias. The 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025petitioner filed transfer application on the ground that the trial Court suo motu directed the plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2014 to recross the witness after holding that Plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2023 and O.S.No.43 of 2017 were colluding. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of trial, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion, as if, there was a collusion between plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2023 and plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 2017, therefore, it creates a lot of apprehension in the minds of the petitioner. It is further stated that during cross examination of witness, the objection raised by the petitioner's counsel has not been recorded and the objections raised by the counsel for contesting respondent were recorded and highlighted. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contented that in view of the facts narrated above, the petitioner has got genuine apprehension and therefore, all the suits shall be directed to be transferred. 6. Even as per the averment made by the petitioner in their affidavit, all the suits are tried together as per the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.702 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025of 2025. In fact, in the said order, this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within the period of four months. The main ground on which transfer is sought for by the petitioner is that the learned Judge suo motu directed the contesting respondents/plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2014 to conduct recross of the witness by recording the finding that there was a collusion between the plaintiffs in O.S.No.195 of 2023 and O.S.No.43 of 2017. 7. It is specific allegation of the petitioner that the said order was passed by the learned Judge suo motu after recording the said finding. The relevant recording of the Court is available in Page Nos.126 and 127 of the additional typed set of papers dated 29.10.2025. The same reads as follows:''(mry; tHf;F vz;/195-2023 tHf;fpd; thjpfs; mry; tHf;F vz;/43-2017 tHf;fpy; thjpfnshL Mjuthf bray;gLfpd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; mry; tHf;F vz;/195-2023 tHf;fpd; thjpfs; jug;gpy; bra;ag;gl;l FWf;F tprhuiz mry; tHf;F vz;/43-2017 vd;w tHf;fpy; thjpfspd; jug;gpy; Mjuthf ,Uf;fpd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; mry; tHf;F vz;/154-2014 tHf;fpd; thjpapd; jug;gpy; tHf;fwp"u; nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljw;fpz';f mry; tHf;F vz;/195-2023 tHf;fpy; thjpfs; jug;gpy; bra;ag;gl;l rhl;rpapd; FWf;F tprhuiz bjhlu;ghf kW FWf;F tprhuiz bra;a ntz;LnfhSf;fpz';f xj;jpitf;fg;gLfpwJ/''8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025 8. The e-Court adjudication uploaded in the official website was produced in page No.128 and the same reads as follows: “Costs memo filed is recorded. DW.1, present examined in cross in full by plaintiff's side and plaintiffs in O.S.No.195 of 2023, Ex.A26, Ex.B15 to B18 documents marked. For further Cross of DW.1 at request of plaintiffs counsel, call on 20.08.2025.” 9. A close reading of the recording of the Court make it clear, the learned Judge permitted recross of the witness on the request made by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2014 and no order was passed suo motu as contended by the petitioner. Of course, at the time of permitting recross, the learned Judge recorded that there was collusion between the plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 2017 and 195 of 2023. The reasoning given by the learned Judge for permitting recross examination by plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2017 is the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and the said Civil Revision Petition is said to be pending. During the course of trial and hearing interlocutory application, the trial Court may record prima facie findings, those prima facie findings are not conclusive and after 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025perusing documents and at the time of arguments of the main suit after hearing the parties, the Court may take a different view. 10. It is settled law, the prima facie finding rendered by the Court during interlocutory stage is not at all binding on it at the time of final disposal. Likewise, at the time of permitting the counsel for plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2014 to cross examine the witness, the Court recorded a prima facie finding with regard to the alleged collusion and the same will not affect the right of the petitioner in any way at the time of final disposal of the suit. In any event, the said order was also said to be challenged by the petitioner in CRP.No.4104 of 2025. In such circumstances, the said reasoning given by the petitioner for requesting transfer is not acceptable to this Court. 11. It is also stated that certain objections of the learned counsel for the transfer petitioner has not been properly recorded and the objection of the counsel appearing for the plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2014 alone was recorded at the time of recording the evidence. If the petitioner has got any grievance with regard to the manner of recording of evidence, the same shall be brought 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025to the notice of the concerned Court then and there in the manner known to law. If the recording made by the Court of its proceedings is not correct, the proper course is to approach the Court immediately, when the same is afresh in its memory. Instead of adopting said course, the petitioner is not entitled to rush to this Court seeking transfer of the proceedings. 12. Further, if the petitioner has got any genuine grievances with regard to the Presiding Officer, it should have approached the Principal District Judge of the concerned District for transfer of the case to any other competent Court in the same District. Instead of adopting the same, the petitioner rushed this Court, seeking transfer of the case from one District to other District and the same is not at all warranted in the considered opinion of this Court. Therefore, these Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed as they are devoid of any merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.07.11.2025Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / No ub11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR , J.ubTo1. The Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram.2.The City Civil Court, Chennai.Tr.CMP.Nos.1145 to 1148 and 1165 of 202507.11.202512/12