Madras High Court
K.Kavitha vs Subramanian Alias V.S.Mani on 31 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR 2007 (NOC) 1841 (MAD.)
Author: P.R.Shivakumar
Bench: P.R.Shivakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31/01/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.3806 of 2005 Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.4565 of 2005 Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.6405 of 2005 Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.4125,4126,4127 and 4129 of 2006 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.3807,4566,6406 of 2005 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1,1,1 and 1 of 2006 K.Kavitha ... Petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.3806/2005 Vijayajothi ...Petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.4565/2005 S.Krishna ...Petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.6405/2005 Sumitha ...Petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.4125/2006 R.Revathy ...Petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.4126/2006 D.Lingeswari ...Petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.4127/2006 S.Hemamalini ...Petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.No.4129/2006 Vs. Subramanian alias V.S.Mani ...Respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.3806/2005 A.Sivasubramanian ...Respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.4565/2005 J.Shankar ...Respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.6405/2005 Sakthivel ...Respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.4125/2006 V.Ramesh ...Respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.4126/2006 N.Ponraj ...Respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.4127/2006 V.Veeraraghavan ...Respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.4129/2006 Tr.C.M.P.No.3806/2005 - filed under Section 24 C.P.C., praying to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai to be heard along with H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2005 filed by the petitioner on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. Tr.C.M.P.No.4565/2005 - filed under Section 24 C.P.C., praying to withdraw the proceeding in H.M.O.P.No.26 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu and to transfer the same to the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. Tr.C.M.P.No.6405/2005 - filed under Section 24 C.P.C., praying to withdraw the divorce petition filed by the respondent herein in H.M.O.P.No.109 of 2004 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore and transfer the same to the file of the third Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai to be jointly tried along with the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.109 of 2005 pending thereon. Tr.C.M.P.No.4125/2006 - filed under Section 24 C.P.C., praying to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.92 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Salem and to transfer the entire proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.92 of 2006 from the file of the Family Court, Salem to the file of the Family Court of Karur with a direction to conduct trial in the Court of Family Judge of Karur. Tr.C.M.P.No.4126/2006 - filed under Section 24 C.P.C., praying to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore and transfer the same to the Sub Court at Kumbakonam. Tr.C.M.P.No.4127/2006 - filed under Section 24 C.P.C., praying to withdraw and transfer the H.M.O.P.No.401 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore to the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. Tr.C.M.P.No.4129/2006 - filed under Section 24 C.P.C., praying to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.3 of 2006 pending disposal on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ponneri to the Family Court, Madurai. !For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondent : M/s.B.Asha (Tr.C.M.P.No.3806/2005) For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jawaharlal For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Krishnan (Tr.C.M.P.No.4565/2005) For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam For Respondent : Mr.J.Shankar (Tr.C.M.P.No.6405/2005) For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss (Tr.C.M.P.No.4125/2006) For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Balaji (Tr.C.M.P.No.4126/2006) For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan (Tr.C.M.P.No.4127/2006) For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajini (Tr.C.M.P.No.4129/2006) :COMMON ORDER
Tr.C.M.P.No.3806 of 2005 has been filed by one Kavitha, the respondent(wife) in H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram. She has prayed that the above said H.M.O.P. pending on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram be transferred to the file of the Family Court, Madurai for being tried along with another H.M.O.P. filed by her viz., H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.
2. Tr.C.M.P.No.4565 of 2005 has been filed by one Vijayajothi, the respondent (wife) in H.M.O.P.No.26 of 2004 now pending on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. She has prayed for the transfer of the above said case from the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu to the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin for joint trial with another H.M.O.P. filed by the petitioner (wife) for restitution of conjugal rights, viz., H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2004.
3. Tr.C.M.P.No.6405 of 2006 has been filed by one S.Krishna, the respondent (wife) in H.M.O.P.No.109 of 2004 now pending on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore praying that the said H.M.O.P. be transferred to the file of the third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for being tried jointly with H.M.O.P.No.109 of 2005 instituted by the petitioner (wife) on the file of the above said Court.
4. Tr.C.M.P.No.4125 of 2006 has been filed by one Sumitha, the respondent (wife) in F.C.O.P.No.92 of 2006 now pending on the file of the Family Court, Salem seeking transfer of the same to the file of the Family Court, Karur on the ground of convenience of the petitioner.
5. Tr.C.M.P.No.4126 of 2006 has been filed by one R.Revathy, the respondent (wife) in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore seeking transfer of the above said case to the Sub Court, Kumbakonam on the ground of convenience of the petitioner.
6. Tr.C.M.P.No.4127 of 2006 has been filed by one D.Lingeswari, the respondent(wife) in H.M.O.P.No.401 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore seeking transfer of the same to the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli on the ground of convenience of the petitioner.
7. Tr.C.M.P.No.4129 of 2006 has been filed by one Hemamalini, the respondent (wife) in H.M.O.P.No.3 of 2006 now pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ponneri seeking transfer of the above said case to the Family Court, Madurai on the ground of convenience of the petitioner.
8. All the above said seven Transfer C.M.Ps. have been filed purportedly under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for orders transferring the cases pending on the file of various Courts that come within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of Madras High Court at Chennai to the file of various Courts functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai. In the first three Tr.C.M.Ps., the respondents have entered appearance through counsel. An important question of law concerning the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai, to entertain transfer petitions seeking transfer of cases pending on the file of the Courts functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court at Chennai, has arisen as a common issue in all these cases. Therefore, even without ordering notice to the respondents in the latter four cases, they have been directed to be posted for hearing regarding the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and hence all the seven Tr.C.M.Ps. have been taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by the following common order.
9. A Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai was constituted by a presidential notification called "THE MADRAS HIGH COURT (ESTABLISHMENT OF A PERMANENT BENCH AT MADURAI) ORDER, 2004" dated 06.07.2004 with powers to exercise jurisdiction and powers vested in the High Court in respect of cases arising in 12 districts, viz., Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin, Madurai, Dindugal, Ramanathapuram Virudhunagar, Sivaganga, Pudukkottai, Thanjavur, Tiruchirappalli and Karur. The presidential notification contains a proviso to the effect that the Chief Justice of the High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Chennai. The common issue involved in all these Tr.C.M.P.s is in respect of the interpretation of the above said presidential notification.
10. The Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai came to be constituted by virtue of the above said notification and became functional with effect from 24.07.2004. All these petitions have been filed on the assumption that every Court other than the High Court, functioning within the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry, whichever may be the district in which such a Court may be functioning, is subordinate to the High Court of Madras of which the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai are integral parts.
11. According to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in all these cases, any subordinate Court functioning within the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry should be deemed to be subordinate to both the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai and hence the Permanent Bench at Madurai does have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for transfer of a case even from a Court functioning within a district other than the 12 districts mentioned in the presidential notification.
12. The following are the contentions, regarding the question of jurisdiction, made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these Tr.C.M.Ps:-
(i) All the Courts other than the High Court functioning within the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry, whichever may be the district in which such a Court may be functioning, are subordinate to the High Court of Madras of which the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai are integral parts;
(ii) Even though the Court from which a case is sought to be transferred functions within the districts other than the districts allotted to the Permanent Bench at Madurai, Tr.C.M.Ps. can be entertained by the Permanent Bench at Madurai provided the cause of action for seeking the transfer arises within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench;
(iii) In cases seeking transfer for joint trial, if the connected case is pending on the file of a Court functioning within the districts allotted to the Permanent Bench at Madurai, the same shall be enough to hold that the cause of action for the transfer of the other case pending on the file of a Court functioning within the districts allotted to the Principal Bench at Chennai has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai;
(iv) Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been couched in such terms that the Court from which the case is sought to be transferred (transferor Court) and the Court to which the case is sought to be transferred (transferee Court) should be subordinate to the same High Court. If the contention that exclusive territorial jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai in respect of the districts mentioned in the notification and in respect of all other districts exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon the Principal Bench at Chennai is accepted, then one may not be in a position to seek an order of transfer even from the Principal Bench at Chennai, as the Court to which the case is sought to be transferred (transferee Court) functions within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai.
13. Let us deal with the above said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners one by one.
14. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai should be treated as integral parts of one and the same High Court and hence all the Subordinate Courts functioning within the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry are subordinate to both the benches, cannot be accepted to be the correct preposition. The said question has already been dealt with by the Apex Court and the view expressed by the Apex Court is against the above said preposition.
15. For the sake of convenience, the contents of the Presidential notification establishing a Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai is extracted here under:
"There shall be established a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, and such Judges of the Madras High Court, being not less than five in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Madurai in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin, Madurai, Dindugal, Ramanathapuram, Virudhunagar, Sivaganga, Pudukkottai, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam, Tiruchirappalli, Perambalur and Karur in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Chennai."
16. A notification, similar to be one issued in case of establishment of Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai, had been issued in case of Rajasthan High Court with exactly similar proviso giving a discretionary power to the Chief Justice to order any case or class of cases arising within the districts allotted to the Permanent Bench of Jaipur to be heard at Jodhpur. A similar issue arose before the Honourable Supreme Court in respect of the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur and its Permanent Bench at Jaipur. The Supreme Court in clear and unambiguous terms held that the establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur with powers to exercise jurisdiction over the districts allotted to it, had effected a bifurcation of the State for the purpose of exercise of jurisdiction by the said Benches of Rajasthan High Court, with the only exception that the Chief Justice of the said High Court was given a discretionary power to direct that any case or class of cases arising in any of the districts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Jaipur shall be heard at Jodhpur.
17. The Supreme Court made reference to its decision made in earlier case viz., State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan reported in AIR 1983 SC 46. In the said case, it had been observed as follows:
"the President under sub-Section (2) of Section 51 thereof, [referring to 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956], after consultation with the Governor of a new State and the Chief Justice of the High Court for that State, pertains to the establishment of a permanent Bench or Benches of that High Court of a new State at one or more places within the State other than the place where the principal seat of the High Court is located and for any matters connected therewith clearly confer power on the President to define the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench in relation to the principal seat as also for the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction to such permanent Bench to hear cases arising in districts falling within its jurisdiction. The creation of a permanent Bench under sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act must therefore bring about a territorial bifurcation of the High Court."
18. In line with the above said observation made in the former case, the Supreme Court in "Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India and others" reported in AIR 2001 SC 416 has held as follows:
"The establishment of a permanent Bench at Jaipur and defining its territorial jurisdiction brought out a bifurcation of State of Rajasthan into two for the purpose of division of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court between the principal seat and the permanent Bench seat. The Chief Justice of the State cannot, thereafter, artificially or indirectly take away the jurisdiction belonging to one and confer it on the other."
19. The Court added further that conferring a discretion on the Chief Justice to order any case or class of cases arising in any district within the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur shall be heard at Jodhpur cannot spell out a power to define, where the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen in any case.
20. In an earlier case Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in AIR 1976 SC 331, it was held as follows:
"The Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. The Chief Justice has power under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order to direct, in his discretion, that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad instead of Lucknow is wrong."
21. The said view expressed in the above said case was again approved by the Supreme Court in U.P.Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1995 SC 2148.
22. In Smt.Geetha Kathpalia v. Hemant Kathpalia reported in AIR 1992 MP 281, a single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as follows:
"Since the President has specified the districts over which, the permanent Benches are to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, it is clear that the jurisdiction of Benches is confined to the cases arising within the specified districts, and they are not competent to hear and decide cases arising in other areas, which are not assigned to them."
23. In view of the view expressed in the above said case and the consistent view expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court that the establishment of a permanent Bench with powers to exercise jurisdiction over defined areas shall virtually effect a bifurcation of the State for the exercise of jurisdiction of the benches of the High Court, (Bench at Principal Seat and Permanent Bench at another places), I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the term 'High Court' appearing in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be taken to mean the High Court as a whole that is inclusive of the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai, for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction in transfer of cases.
24. On the other hand, I am of the considered view that the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai shall be construed as separate, for the practical purpose of exercise of jurisdiction, even though the Judges are interchangeable at the discretion of the Chief Justice. The only exception is the discretion conferred upon the Chief Justice to direct any case or class of cases arising within the jurisdiction of Permanent Bench at Madurai to be heard at Chennai. This view alone will be in consonance with the proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases discussed above. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is hereby rejected.
25. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even though the cases sought to be transferred might have been instituted and pending in a Court functioning within a district not allotted to the jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Madurai, the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen also within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai, if any one the following circumstances exists:
(i) the connected cases are pending in one of the Courts functioning within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to the Madurai Bench;
(ii) as the case may be, the party seeking transfer happens to reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Madurai; and
(iii) the Court to which the case is sought to be transferred is functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Madurai.
Based on the above said contention, the petitioners have made a further contention that this Bench has got jurisdiction to entertain these Tr.C.M.Ps., as the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen also within the territorial jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai.
26. The cause of action for a original proceeding is to be distinguished from the cause of action for the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court pronounced in U.P.Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1995 SC 2148 is to the effect that when a challenge is made, invoking the original jurisdiction of the High Court, to an order passed by an authority in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction and the appellate or revisional forum is located at a place within the jurisdiction of one Bench and the original case in which the appeal or revision has originated at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of another Bench (i.e. the place of forum which passed the order forming the subject matter of the appeal or revision), then it should be held that the cause of action has arisen at both places and both the Benches would be having jurisdiction to entertain such challenge. Similarly in respect of exercise of writ jurisdiction, the seat of Government or the Government Office where from the impugned order is issued and the place wherein the effect of such order is experienced by the complaining party shall be deemed to be the places in which the cause of action has arisen and in such cases, it shall be left to the litigant to file the writ petition in the Bench having jurisdiction over either of the two places. There also the question of jurisdiction was decided based on a place wherein the cause of action arose for the purpose of making a challenge by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, which is nevertheless a original proceedings. Jurisdiction in the matter of Tr.C.M.Ps. shall be the same as in appeals and revisions. A cause of action for appeal or revision should be deemed to have arisen only at the place wherein the Court from whose decree or order the appeal or revision is preferred. Similarly, in respect of Tr.C.M.Ps., the place wherein the cause of action arises shall be nothing but the place wherein the case sought to be transferred is pending.
27. According to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court may transfer any case pending on the file of a Court subordinate to it from the file of the said Court to the file of any other Court subordinate to it. From the wordings of Section 24, at the outset, it may appear that both the Courts i.e. from which the case is sought to be transferred (transferor Court) and the Court to which the case is sought to be transferred (transferee Court) should be subordinate to the same High Court for exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction in transfer of cases. What is the meaning to be assigned to the term 'High Court' appearing in the above said Section? whether the subordination is judicial subordination or administrative subordination? - are the questions to be answered.
28. So far as the administrative subordination of lower Court is concerned, there is no clear cut demarcation of powers between the Principal Bench and the permanent Bench and the entire High Court, headed by a Chief Justice and consisting of the Judges sitting both at Principal Seat and the seat of the Permanent Bench exercise, administrative control over the subordinate Judiciary. The term 'subordination' found in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be construed to mean only judicial subordination and not administrative subordination. If the view that the administrative subordination shall be the guiding factor to entertain transfer applications, then it will create an anomalous situation, wherein a Judge sitting in the permanent Bench at Madurai may order transfer of a case from a Court functioning at a place allotted to the Bench at the Principal Seat of the High Court to a Court functioning within the districts allotted to the permanent Bench. Later on a Judge sitting in the Principal Seat of a High Court in the very same case may, at the instance of the opposite party, order the transfer of the same case to the very same Court from which the same was transferred or to any other Court within the districts allotted to the Principal Bench. This is possible because an order passed in a transfer C.M.P. may not necessarily constitute res judicata. The acceptance of the above said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners will have a far reaching consequences. Therefore, this Court comes to a conclusion that the above said contention raised on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted and the same deserves to be rejected as untenable.
29. The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that in the event of this Court holding that the Permanent Bench at Madurai does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Tr.C.M.Ps. for transferring a case pending on the file of a Court functioning within any one of the districts allotted to the Principal Bench to a Court functioning within the district allotted to the permanent Bench, then a similar application filed on the file of the Principal Bench may also meet with the very same fate, as the Court to which the case is sought to be transferred is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, since Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires both the Courts (transferor and transferee Courts) to be subordinate to the same High Court.
30. The above said argument seems to have been advanced in ignorance of the scheme provided in the Civil Procedure Code in Sections 22,23,24 and 25 C.P.C. for transfer of cases. Section 24 deals with the power of not only the High Court but also the District Court to transfer cases pending on the file of the Courts subordinate to it. On the other hand, Sections 22 and 23 deal with the powers of the appellate Court, either it be the District Court, Sub Court, or the High Court. Sub Section 2 of Section 23 C.P.C. makes it clear that if the transferor and transferee Courts are subordinate to different Appellate Courts but to the very same High Court, then the application for transfer should be made to the High Court. Sub Section 3 of Section 23 deals with a different situation when, the transferor and transferee Courts are subordinate to different High Courts. In such a case, the application shall be made to the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Court in which the suit is brought is situate. The term "the Court in which the suit is brought is situate" denotes the transferor Court, in any other words, the Court from which the case is sought to be transferred. A conjoint reading of Sections 23 and 24 C.P.C. and harmonious construction of both the provisions will allay the apprehension expressed on the part of the petitioners in the Tr.C.M.Ps. Therefore, this Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioners shall not be without remedy, if it is held that this permanent Bench at Madurai does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application for the transfer of a case pending on the file of a Court functioning within an area not allotted to the jurisdiction of the permanent Bench. In such cases, the principal Bench at Chennai can be approached. The above said view is in consonance with the view expressed by a single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in "Smt. Geetha Kathpalia, Petitioner vs. Hemant Kathpalia, Respondent, reported in AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 281". It was observed thus:
"It is wrong to think that in the circumstances, while sitting at Bench seat at Gwalior a Judge is free to pass an order commanding the District Judge, Bhopal to transfer the case to Gwalior."
31. The learned counsel for the petitioners bringing the Judgment of a single Judge of the Madras High Court, Principal Bench at Chennai, pronounced in T.Kamatchi vs. S.Murali @ Kanagasabapathy reported in 2006(2) CTC 131 to my notice, represented that the single Judge of this Court expressed a view that all the subordinate Courts functioning within Tamil Nadu were subordinate to either components of the High Court, that is to say the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai were having the power to order transfer of a case from the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai (a Court functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Madurai) to the file of the Family Court, Salem (a Court functioning within the districts not allotted to the permanent Bench at Madurai).
32. The learned single Judge has observed that though the Permanent Bench at Madurai would be the appellate Court for the cases arising in the districts lying within its territorial jurisdiction, since the Chief Justice in the Principal Seat at Chennai has been given a power to order that any case pending on the file of the Madurai Bench be heard at Chennai, it would indicate that the power of appellate authority of the Madurai Bench is likely to be delegated to the Principal bench at Chennai and that such a delegation cannot have any meaningful effect unless the Principal Bench at Chennai is clothed with such a power of appellate authority over the territorial jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai. In line with the above said view expressed by him, the learned single Judge of this Court has observed that all the Courts falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai will be considered subordinate also to the Principal Bench at Chennai. The presidential order empowers the Chief Justice to direct, in his discretion, that any case or class of cases arising within the districts allotted to the Permanent Bench at Madurai shall be heard at Principal Bench at Chennai and not vice versa. The same would have influenced the learned single Judge in the said case to express the view that all the Courts functioning within the districts allotted to the Permanent Bench at Madurai are subordinate also to the Principal Bench at Chennai. The view taken by the brother Judge in the above said case is to the effect that a Judge sitting in the Principal Seat of the Madras High Court shall have the power to transfer a case pending on the file of a Court within the districts allotted to the permanent Bench at Madurai and the same was not a case in which a view was expressed that the Permanent Bench at Madurai shall have the jurisdiction to order a transfer of a case pending on the file of a Court functioning within the area not allotted to the permanent Bench. Hence suffice to observe that the said Judgment can be distinguished from the cases on hand and hence the view expressed therein is not applicable to the cases on hand, without expressing any view either of approval or of disapproval of the view expressed in the above said case.
33. For all these reasons stated above, I do hereby come to a conclusion that these Tr.C.M.Ps. cannot be maintained in the permanent Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, for the reason that the permanent Bench does not have jurisdiction to entertain these Tr.C.M.Ps., since the Court from which the cases are sought to be transferred are functioning not within the districts allotted to the permanent Bench but within the districts left to the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench.
34. In the result, all these Tr.C.M.Ps. are dismissed. However it is made clear that the petitioners shall be at liberty to move the Principal Bench for the relief sought for in these petitions invoking the powers of the said Bench in accordance with Section 24 r/w Section 23(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
To
1.The Sub Court, Dharapuram.
2.The Family Court, Madurai.
3.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
4.The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.
5.The second Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
6.The third Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.
7.The Family Court, Salem.
8.The Family Court, Karur.
9.The Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore.
10.The Sub Court, Kumbakonam.
11.The Family Court, Coimbatore.
12.The Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.
13.The Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.
14.The Family Court, Madurai.