High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed.
Transfer Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
Case / Petition Number:Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anil K. Narendran
- P. G. Ajithkumar
- Judgment Date
- 2022-07-26
- Court Decision / Holding
- Hence, the appeals are dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- JASEELA K.
- ANSIL K.
- ANAS P.
Respondents
- MANI R S/O RAMASAMY
- THANGARASU C. AGED 47 YEARS
- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
- ALICE AGED 52 YEARS
- JOY OUSEPH @ JOY AGED 57 YEARS
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • BABY MATHEW
Counsels for Respondents
- • SHRI LAL K. JOSEPH, SC
- • ANZIL SALIM SURESH SUKUMAR
Case Synopsis & Summary
Two Transfer Appeals (C) Nos. 11 and 12 of 2022, heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 26 July 2022, arise from a common order dated 8 April 2022 of a learned Single Judge dismissing transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC. The appellants, Jaseela K., Ansil K., and Anas P. (represented by their mother Jaseela K.), sought to transfer two Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cases (O.P.(MV) Nos. 1440/2017 and 1583/2017) from Palakkad MACT-IV to Ottappalam MACT on convenience grounds, claiming witnesses reside nearby and that they must prove marriage between the first appellant and the deceased, Lijesh P. Joy, to establish dependency. Respondents, including the parents of the deceased and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., contended that by the date of the petition, evidence had largely been recorded; transfer would disrupt trial, and re-opening evidence would be unnecessary. The learned Single Judge held that personal attendance was required only for a day or two, and since evidence was already recorded, transfer for convenience was not warranted. The Division Bench affirmed, citing the precautionary principle from Balan v. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sangham Trust (2005 (4) KLT 865) that a Section 24 order should not be interfered with unless manifestly illegal or causing grave injustice. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Division Bench must be reluctant to interfere with an order passed under Section 24, CPC, unless it is manifestly illegal and erroneous or carrying grave and substantial injustice (as stated in Balan v. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sangham Trust, 2005 (4) KLT 865).
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contended that transfer to MACT Ottappalam would be more convenient, as the witnesses reside about 10 km from Mannarkkad where a camp MACT sits, facilitating attendance. They argued the need to prove the marriage between the 1st appellant and the deceased to establish dependency, requiring in-court examination of witnesses located locally. They sought transfer and, in one case, reopening of evidence to lay additional witnesses. They emphasized the stage of proceedings and the potential disruption of trials if transferred late.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents argued that evidence had already been recorded in both cases; the trial was near completion, with only potential additional examination if reopening is allowed. They submitted that transfer solely for convenience would not serve substantial justice, and the earlier order declining transfer should be sustained. They also relied on the pre-existing progress of the MACT proceedings and the principle that a Section 24 transfer should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balan v. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sangham Trust | 2005 (4) KLT 865 | Positive | Cited to support the principle that a Division Bench should be reluctant to interfere with a Section 24 transfer order unless manifestly illegal or causing grave injustice; the court applied this standard. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Transfer Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR**
**TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 11 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2022 IN Tr.P(C) 224/2022 OF**
## **HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
**1 JASEELA K. AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.LATE LIJESH JOY, D/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOLPPADAM, THENKARA P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 582.**
- **2 ANSIL K.**
**AGED 11 YEARS, S/O.LATE LIJESH JOY (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN JASEELA K., AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.LATE LIJESH JOY, D/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOLPPADAM, THENKARA P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 582.**
## **3 ANAS P.**
**AGED 15 YEARS, S/O.LATE LIJESH JOY (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN JASEELA K., AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.LATE LIJESH JOY, D/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOLPPADAM, THENKARA P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 582.**
## **BY ADV BABY MATHEW**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 MANI R.**
**S/O.RAMASAMY, 4/6, JAYANTHI COLONY,**
**SELLAPPAMPATTI P.O., NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 637 019.**
2
Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
- **2 THANGARASU C.**
**AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.CHINNAN, 3/39A, KARAIKURICHYPUDUR COLONY, KARAIKURICHI, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 606 213.**
- **3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.**
- **REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, SETHUKRISHNA TRADE CENTRE, SECOND FLOOR, TRICHY MAIN ROAD SALEM, TAMIL NADU - 636 006, COMMUNICATION ADDRESS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., N S TOWER, NEAR STADIUM BUS STAND, COIMBATORE ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001.**
- **4 ALICE**
**AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.JOY, POOTHODE VEEDU, MANKURRISSI, VAZHAMPURAM P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 595.**
- **5 JOY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, POOTHODE VEEDU, MANKURRISSI, VAZHAMPURAM P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 595.**
**BY ADVS.**
**R3 BY SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ANZIL SALIM SURESH SUKUMAR**
**THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.Appeal(C).12/2022, THE COURT ON 26.07.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
3
Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR**
**TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 12 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2022 IN Tr.P(C) NO.226 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
- **1 JASEELA K.,**
**AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.LATE LIJESH JOY, D/O ABDUL LATHEEF, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOLPPADAM, THENKARA P O, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678582.**
- **2 ANSIL K.,**
**AGED 11 YEARS, S/O.LATE LIJESH JOY, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN JASSELA K AGED 30 W/O.LATE LIJESH JOY,**
**D/O ABDUL LATHEEF, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOLPPADAM, THENKARA P O, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.**
- **3 ANAS P., S/O.LATE LIJESH JOY, AGED 15 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN JASSELA K AGED 30 W/O.LATE LIJESH JOY,**
- **D/O ABDUL LATHEEF, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOLPPADAM, THENKARA P O, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.**
## **BY ADV BABY MATHEW**
4
Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 MANI R S/O RAMASAMY, 4/6, JAYANTHI COLONY, SELLAPPAMPATTI P O, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN – 637019.**
- **2 THANGARASU C. AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.CHINNAN, 3/39A, KARAIKURICHYPUDUR COLONY, KARAIKURICHI, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 606 213.**
- **3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, SETHUKRISHNA TRADE CENTRE, SECOND FLOOR, TRICHY MAIN ROAD SALEM, TAMIL NADU - 636 006, COMMUNICATION ADDRESS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., N S TOWER, NEAR STADIUM BUS STAND, COIMBATORE ROAD, PALAKKAD.**
- **4 ALICE AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.JOY, POOTHODE VEEDU, MANKURRISSI, VAZHAMPURAM P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 595.**
- **5 JOY OUSEPH @ JOY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, PUTHEDTTU VEEDU, MANKURRISSY, VAZHAMPURAM P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 595.**
**BY ADVS. R3 BY SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ANZIL SALIM SURESH SUKUMAR**
**THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR**
**FINAL HEARING ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.Appeal(C).11/2022, THE COURT ON 26.07.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
5
Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
## **JUDGMENT**
## Ajithkumar, J.
The appellants filed Transfer Petition (C) Nos.224 and 226 of 2022 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As per the common order dated 08.04.2022, learned Single Judge dismissed the Transfer Petitions. The reasons stated for dismissing the Transfer Petitions are,-
“4. Here, two motor accident claim petitions have been pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad from 2017 onwards. It is relevant to note that the petitioners themselves filed one petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. Now the said cases are ripe for trial and the evidence to decide MACT claims are much less. Personal attendance of the parties for one or two days alone is required for giving evidence, if parties opt to give oral evidence. Otherwise, the matters can be considered and disposed of even without oral evidence after marking documents. In such cases, the transfer sought for highlighting convenience is of no much significance.”
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent.
6
Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
3. The appellants sought to transfer O.P.(MV) No.1440 of 2017 and 1583 of 2017 pending before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Palakkad, to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. The purpose for which transfer was sought is that the appellants are residing 10 kms. away from Mannarkkad, where the MACT, Ottappalam, has a camp sitting, and therefore, it would be convenient for them to bring witnesses to the court for examination.
4. The appellants filed O.P.(MV) No.1583 of 2017 claiming compensation on account of the death of Sri.Lijesh P.Joy. The appellants claimed that they are the wife and children of Sri.Lijesh P.Joy. Respondents 4 and 5 filed O.P. (MV) No.1440 of 2017 claiming compensation on account of the death of Sri.Lijesh P.Joy. They are the parents of the deceased and they do not accept the marriage between the 1[st] appellant and Sri.Lijesh P.Joy. The appellants would contend that in the light of the contentions raised by respondents 4 and 5, the appellants are obliged to prove the marriage between the 1[st] appellant and the deceased, for which
7
Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
witnesses are to be examined. Witnesses hail from the native place of the appellants, Kolpara, which is about 10 kms. away from Mannarkkad, are to be examined in court. In order for the convenience of bringing the witnesses to court and to examine, the appellants sought transfer of both the claim applications to the MACT, Ottappalam.
5. A report regarding the present status of O.P.(MV) Nos.1440 and 1583 of 2017 was called for. The Additional MACT-IV, Palakkad, submitted a report. The Tribunal has submitted that evidence in both the cases was recorded. However, after the closure of the evidence, the appellants herein filed I.A.No.1170 of 2022 in O.P.(MV) No.1583 of 2017 to re-open the evidence.
6. The learned Single Judge was not convinced with the reasons stated for the request for a transfer of the claim petitions. It was observed that personal attendance of the parties before the Tribunal is required only for one or two days, and therefore, a transfer of the cases just for the convenience of the parties to give evidence could not be
8
Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
ordered. Now, it has come out that entire evidence of either side has been recorded. Of course, the petition filed by the appellants seeking to reopen the evidence is pending and if that petition is allowed, witnesses may have to be examined. When evidence is already recorded in both the cases, a transfer of the cases to another Tribunal will not be in the interest of justice.
7. In **Balan v. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sangham Trust [2005 (4) KLT 865]** , a Full Bench of this Court held,-
“15. Even though an order passed at the instance of one party to the suit by the Single Judge under Section 24, CPC is appealable under Section 5(i) of the High Court Act, a word of caution is also necessary. When an appeal is filed against the order passed under Section 24 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, Division Bench must be reluctant to interfere in the matter unless it is manifestly illegal and erroneous or carrying grave and substantial injustice.”
8. The learned Single Judge for sufficient reasons declined the request for the transfer. It has now come out that
9
Tr.Appeal (C) Nos.11 & 12 of 2022
the Additional MACT-IV, Palakkad, had already recorded evidence in both the cases and what remains is additional evidence, that too, in case of allowing I.A.No.1170 of 2022. Viewed the facts of the case in the light of the observation in the aforesaid decision, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.
Hence, the appeals are dismissed.
**Sd/-**
## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE**
**Sd/-**
**P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE**
dkr