TR CMP(MD)/554/2025 of B.Mohamed Kalifullah Vs S.Arivin Nisa on 30 October 2026

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.24 of CPC seeking for an order to withdraw the case in O.S.No.185 of 2018 pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul and to transfer the same to any other nearby District Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 1st respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.185 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, against the petitioner and other respondents for partition. She is the sister of the petitioner. On 29.08.2025, the case was taken up for recording the proof affidavit. The 1st respondent/plaintiff was not present, some impersonated person was caused to be present. The alleged 1st respondent, who was present before the Court to record the proof affidavit, was not her sister, i.e., the original plaintiff. So, he filed the petition in I.A.No.2 of 2024 under

TR CMP(MD) No. 554 of 2025 Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC to conduct a DNA test and the same was dismissed by the Court. Moreover, at the time of filing the suit, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has not filed the death certificate of the party’s father, during the pendency of the suit, she filed the forged death certificate and the same was admitted by the Court. Later, the petitioner came to know that the husband of the Presiding Officer of the Court is the friend of the 1st respondent’s husband. So, the husband of the 1st respondent/plaintiff has influenced the husband of the Presiding Officer and obtained an order in her favour. Hence, the petitioner apprehends in conducting the case before the Principal District Court, Dindigul and therefore, the petition may be allowed.

3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff has submitted that there is no evidence or any material produced by the petitioner to show that the husband of the Presiding Officer is helping the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner is a practising advocate. He filed a petition in I.A.No.107 of 2019 to reject the plaint and that petition was dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition challenging the said dismissal order was also dismissed by this Court. While producing the proof affidavit, the petitioner filed the petition in I.A.No.2 of 2024 and the same was also dismissed. The CRP against the dismissal of I.A.No.2 of

TR CMP(MD) No. 554 of 2025 2024 was also dismissed. The main suit is filed for partition and is pending at the evidence stage. The petitioner has filed this petition only to drag on the proceedings. Moreover, the Presiding Officer of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, has already retired. Therefore, this petition has no merit and the same has to be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent is the 3rd defendant in the main suit, he is sailing with the petitioner in the main suit. There is no CRP pending. In the main suit, P.W.1 was examined and the suit is pending for further evidence.

5. On hearing from both sides, it is clear that the main suit is filed for partition against the petitioner and other siblings. The petitioner is a practising advocate, so he can very well contest the case. The petitioner has not produced any material to show the friendship of the 1st respondent/plaintiff’s husband with the husband of the Presiding Officer. The suit was filed in the year 2018. The petitioner already filed two petitions for rejecting the plaint and for a DNA test in respect of the 1st respondent, and they were dismissed. The Civil Revision Petitions were also dismissed. The main suit has been pending for nearly 7 years and now the suit is pending at the evidence stage. In such circumstances,

TR CMP(MD) No. 554 of 2025 the argument of the 1st respondent that the petitioner has filed this petition levelling bald allegations only to protract the suit proceedings cannot be brushed aside, as there is no substance. Moreover, it is pertinent to note here that the said Presiding Officer of the Principal District Court, Dindigul has already retired. This fact was not specifically denied by the petitioner. In the absence of any acceptable material, the allegation levelled by the petitioner cannot be taken as true one. Even the said allegation need not be considered as the Presiding Officer against whom the petitioner levelled the allegation became infructuous. Hence, considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petition has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 30.10.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No VSD To

1. The Principal District Judge,Dindigul.

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

TR CMP(MD) No. 554 of 2025 P.VADAMALAI, J. VSD Pre - Delivery Order made in TR CMP(MD) No. 554 of 2025 AND CMP(MD)No. 15296 of 2025 30.10.2026