TRCMP/628/2013 of Smt. Kamadhana Andal, Vs Mr. Malladi Venkat Sitaram Kamesam on 31 December 2013

O R D E R :

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed totransfer O.S.No.468 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,Secunderabad to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

The petitioner is the defendant in the above suit. The saidsuit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for recoveryof a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest thereon contending that hehad lent the money by way of NEFT bank transfer when thepetitioner requested the amount for performing heart surgery forher husband in July, 2012 and that although, the petitionerpromised to repay the amount within 45 days by selling herproperty at Mudenepalli, Krishna District, she did not repay themoney.

In the affidavit filed in support of this application, thepetitioner states that she is an old lady suffering from severalailments including chronic bronchial asthma and severehypertension and she has to take care of her husband, who hadunderwent a surgery recently. She also alleged that thetransaction took place at Kakinda and the Court at Secunderabadhas no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent contending thatthe medical certificate filed along with the application is of the year2005 and no material is placed on record as to the present medicalcondition of the petitioner. It is also contended that the son ofpetitioner is an acquaintance of the respondent and the money waslent on humanitarian grounds hoping that the money would bereturned within the promised time. It is also contended that thisapplication is filed only to drag on the suit and no inconvenience would be caused to the petitioner as she can come on the datefixed to give evidence and the rest of the suit can be contestedthrough a counsel. It is also stated that if there is anyinconvenience to the petitioner, she can even get an advocate-commissioner appointed to record her evidence.

I have noted the submissions of both sides.

The affidavit filed in support of the application does notdisclose the age of the petitioner. Although an ElectionCommission I.D. card is filed showing her date of birth as 1946,the absence of the mention of the age in the affidavit issuspicious. Moreover, the petitioner has filed medical certificatedt.10.02.2005 wherein her age is shown as 57 years and whichstates that she is suffering from chronic bronchial asthma withrecurrent ailment. It is not known what is the present state ofhealth of the petitioner is. If the petitioner was really in such acondition that she could not travel to Hyderabad, she would havefiled a recent medical certificate. If the petitioner is advised thatthe Court at Secunderabad had no jurisdiction and only the Courtsat Kakinada has jurisdiction, she can move a petition under OrderVII Rule 10 CPC. The application made by the petitioner does notappear to be bona fide. Even if there is any inconvenience to thepetitioner to come to Hyderabad to give evidence, she can alwaysrequest the Court below to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner torecord her evidence at Kakinada. Admittedly she has engaged acounsel in the Secunderabad Court to defend her. I am,therefore, satisfied that no case is made out for transfer ofO.S.No.468 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,Secundrabad to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

31[st] December, 2013

gra

___________________________

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J