✦ Kerala High Court · 18 Aug 2009

TR.P(C) No. 319 of 2008 · Kerala High Court

TR.P(C) No. 319 of 2008S S SATHEESACHANDRAN2 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
18 Aug 2009
Bench
S S SATHEESACHANDRAN

Provisions considered

Judgment

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.-------------------------------Tr.P.(C).NO.319 OF 2008 ()-----------------------------------Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009

O R D E RPetition for transfer is filed under Section 24 of the Codeof Civil Procedure. Petitioners are the defendants inO.S.No.406 of 2006 on the file of Munsiff's Court, NorthParavur. They have filed another suit as O.S.No.536 of 2007as plaintiffs before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur, the issues arising for adjudication and the parties in both the suits are the same, and so much so, transfer of O.S.No.406 of2006 from the Munsiff Court, North Paravur to the AdditionalSub Court, North Paravur, where O.S.No.536 of 2007 ispending, is essential, is the case canvassed in the transfer petition.2. Notice being given, the respondents have entered appearance. TPC.319/0823. I heard the counsel on both sides. The transfer petition was filed at a time when O.S.No.406 of 2006 came upin the list for trial. The other suit filed by the petitioners as plaintiffs O.S.No.536 of 2007, it is reported, is only in the preliminary stage with the issues settled, but no further steps taken. Preliminary issues raised in the suit, whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and whether it has been properly valued and adequacy of the court fee paid etc. remain to be considered before proceeding with the trial. When that be so, the joint trial of the two suits in the near future if at all the transfer of O.S.No.406 of 2006 from the Munsiff Court, North Paravur to the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur isordered will not be possible. Further more, on the submissions made, I find that disposal of one suit will give aquietus to the controversy of the other suit as well. Primafacie, it appears that further proceedings of the trial of the second suit has also to be looked into with reference to Section 10 of CPC. I am not expressing any opinion in that matter in this transfer petition. All the same, where it is seen that one suit is ripe for trial and had been listed previously, I TPC.319/083find that request for transfer cannot be entertained. Thelearned Munsiff, Norther Paravur is directed to disposeO.S.No.406 of 2006 on its file, as expeditiously as possible, after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case. Subject to he above observations, transfer petition isclosed. Send over a copy of the order to the Munsiff Court, North Paravur forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGEprp

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 10.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Kerala High Court, on 18 Aug 2009. The bench was S S SATHEESACHANDRAN.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Kerala High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. TR.P(C) No. 319 of 2008). ← Search more judgments