U. Sanjeev Vs Sundaresan and Vaishnavi and Kunnath

High Court Of Kerala 8 Jan 2013 T.R. P (C) No. 182 of 2012 (2013) 01 KL CK 0092
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

T.R. P (C) No. 182 of 2012

Hon'ble Bench

Thomas P. Joseph, J

Advocates

Jacob Sebastian, for the Appellant; K.V. Anil Kumar, for R1, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Honourable Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, J.@mdashThe prayer in this petition is for transfer of O.S. No. 57 of 2012 from the Sub Court, Kottarakkara to the Sub Court, Palakkad to be tried along with O.S. No. 61 of 2012, in the latter court. Petitioner has filed O.S. No. 61 of 2012 in the Sub Court, Palakkad for return of advance money as per Ext. A1, agreement for sale which did not fructify. The respondent has filed O.S. No. 57 of 2012 in the Sub Court, Kottarakkara claiming damages with respect to the very same agreement alleging that breach was on the part of the petitioner. The request is to transfer the case pending in the Sub Court, Kottarakkara to the Sub Court, Palakkad for joint trial.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the agreement was executed at Palakkad in respect of the property situated at that place. It is also submitted that even in O.S. No. 57 of 2012, the respondent has given his permanent address as Palakkad though it is stated that he is residing at Kottarakkara. The learned counsel submitted that joint trial of the suits is necessary to avoid conflicting findings on the same issues.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the agreement was executed at Kottarakkara and that the Sub Court, Kottarakkara has jurisdiction to try O.S. No. 57 of 2012.

4. I need not go into the question where exactly the agreement was executed. But it is admitted that the agreement was executed with respect to a property within the local limits of the Sub Court, Palakkad. It is also not disputed that O.S. No. 61 of 2012 filed for recovery of advance money is pending in the Sub Court, Palakkad. Hence it is necessary that both the suits are tried and disposed of by the same court. Even in the plaint in O.S. No. 57 of 2012, the respondent has given his permanent address as Palakkad though he is stated to be residing at Kottarakkara. Having regard to these aspects of the matter I am inclined to think that the suits are to be disposed of by the Sub Court, Palakkad.

Resultantly, the Petition is allowed as under:

(a) O.S. No. 57 of 2012 pending in the Sub Court, Kottarakkara is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Sub Court, Palakkad for trial and disposal.

(b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of the parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides.

(c) The question whether O.S. No. 57 of 2012 and O.S. No. 61 of 2012 are to be tried and disposed of jointly shall be decided by the Sub Court, Palakkad after hearing both parties.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More