Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(c) Public hearing shall be held before realignment.

(d) The impugned realignment have made the litigant public to travel a long distance.

4.The second respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the Circular No.1792 of 1879 does not make it incumbent upon the District Judge to call for suggestions, even if the Chief Executive Officer of a District does not offer the same. It is also stated that there is no requirement to hear the public, prior to redistribution of local jurisdiction of Civil Courts. It is further stated that there was a request from the Advocate Association, Rameswaram to redraw the civil jurisdiction of the Munsif Courts concerned, by attaching the civil jurisdiction of Mandapam Firka with the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram. Based on the same, the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram was requested to send detailed remarks along with statistical report on the subject. Pursuant to the same, the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram sent remarks stating that the criminal cases arising from Dhanuskodi to Mandapam are tried in the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram and that it would be easy for the litigant public of Mandapam Firka to approach the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram for filing civil suits. It is stated that in the said circumstances, the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram was also directed to send a draft notification and accordingly, he sent a draft notification that was submitted before the Honourable Portfolio Judge and the Honourable then Acting Chief Justice for approval and the approved notification under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 was published by the second respondent in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary issue No.26 under Part VI Section 1 dated 07.07.2010. Thus, the second respondent has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

Further I submit that as of now 498 Original Suits, 118 Execution Petition, 28 R.C. OPs and 12 Small Causes suit, are pending in District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, out of which 69 Original Suit, 4 Execution Petitions pending before the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram in the Mandapam jurisdiction. The details of case particulars in revenue firka of jurisdiction are also submitted herewith.
Further I submit that the Criminal cases are functioning in the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram for the territorial jurisdiction of Thanuskodi to Mandapam. Mandapam is situated near Rameswaram and distance between Rameswaram and Mandapam is about 15 K.M., and it is very easy for the litigant public to approach Rameswaram Court for filing civil suits. Therefore if the Hon'ble High Court Madras deems fit, the civil cases of the Mandapam jurisdiction may kindly be considered to attach with the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram for the benefit of the Mandapam people's and for early disposal of the civil cases."
i)Perungulam
ii)Ramanathapuram
iii)Thirupulani
iv)Devipattinam
v)Thiru Utirakosamangai
vi)Keelakarai

19.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram has jurisdiction over the following Firkas:

i)Pampan
ii)Rameswaram
iii)Mandapam

20.While the distance between Mandapam and Rameswaram is 18 kms, the distance between Mandapam and Ramanathapuram is 38 kms. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Every Firka contains Villages. Individual Villages could not be chosen for deciding the jurisdiction. The Headquarters of Firka shall be the criteria. The headquarters of Mandapam Firka is Mandapam and Mandapam is admittedly nearer to Rameswaram.

21.Furthermore, I have perused the voluminous files produced by the second respondent relating to this matter. The files shows lot of correspondence between the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram and the second respondent. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram also obtained reports from the District Munsif, Rameswaram and District Munsif, Ramanathapuram. The pending civil cases in both the Munsif Courts at Rameswaram and Ramanathapuram are given and various minute details are also provided by the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram. While there are more than 500 Original Suits pending at any point of time before the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, only 30 Original Suits are pending in District Munsif Court, Rameswaram. Furthermore, Mandapam Firka alone has 68 Original Suits that are pending before the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram. Due to realignment, only those 68 suits could be transferred. I have not dealt with other civil matters, because those are all very very small in number. Therefore, I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force. From the statistics that are available in the files, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the second respondent to redistribute the areas that would ultimately, help the litigant public. There is nothing wrong in taking Firka as the basis for determining the basis for Munsif Courts. Thus, issue no.3 is also decided in favour of the second respondent.