MILAP CHAND SURANA Vs. BHARAT KUMAR SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This transfer civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for transfer of the pending O.S. No. 68 of 2016 from the file of the IV Additional District Court, Ponneri to the file of the II Additional District Court, Poonamallee.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the said suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, who is none other than the son of the first and second petitioners, before the Principal District Court at Thiruvallur seeking a decree of partition of the suit schedule properties into equal shares among the plaintiff and the defendants 1, 3 and 6 and allot 1/4th exclusive share to the plaintiff after deduction of loans and liabilities and also for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them not to alienate, encumber or alter the superstructure in any manner. Due to bifurcation, the said suit was transferred to the IV Additional District Court at Ponneri. The first respondent has also filed yet another suit in O.S. No. 207 of 2011 before the learned District Munsif, Ambattur for a bare injunction against the defendants therein and the said suit also has been transferred to Ponneri, though the learned counsel is not able to inform the exact Court in which the matter is pending except the place. Due to passage of time, as the petitioners-parents are aged, they are finding it difficult to undertake a long travel of 45 kms., from Korattur to Ponneri. Therefore, if the matter is withdrawn and transferred to Poonamallee, the petitioners would be able to undertake a short travel of less than 20 kms., and no prejudice would be caused to anyone, he pleaded.

(3.) But this Court, for two reasons, is unable to entertain the prayer for transfer. Firstly, when the suit for partition in O.S. No. 68 of 2016 is pending on the file of the IV Additional District Court at Ponneri from 2016 after being transferred from the District Court at Thiruvallur due to bifurcation, the petitioners have thought it fit to move the transfer civil miscellaneous petition after two years. Secondly, one another suit in O.S. No. 207 of 2011 filed by the first respondent has been pending from 2011 for a bare injunction at Ponneri. In any event, for the reasons best known to the petitioners, they have not chosen to seek for transfer of the said suit. Therefore, finding the inconsistent stand taken by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for transfer. Hence, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 20304 of 2018 is also dismissed.