Madras High Court
R.Velmurugan vs Balamani @ Balusamy on 24 January, 2025
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 03.01.2025
Pronounced on : 24.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.15271 and 15465 of 2024
R.Velmurugan ... Petitioner in
Tr.CMP(MD)
No.640 of 2024
V.Umadevi ... Petitioner in
Tr.CMP(MD)
No.643 of 2024
Vs.
Balamani @ Balusamy ... Respondent in
Tr.CMP(MD)
No.640 of 2024
S.Padmavathi ... Respondent in
Tr.CMP(MD)
No.643 of 2024
Common Prayer : These Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed
under Section 24 C.P.C., to withdraw and transfer the suits in O.S.Nos.68
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
and 67 of 2024 from the file of the learned IV Additional District Court,
Udumalpet to (any of the) District Court at Madurai.
(in both the petitions)
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vedachalam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu
COMMON ORDER
The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.640
of 2024 is filed to withdraw the case on the file of the IV Additional
District Court, Udumalpet, in O.S.No.68 of 2024 and transfer the same to
any of the District Court at Madurai.
2. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.
643 of 2024 is filed to withdraw the case on the file of the IV Additional
District Court, Udumalpet, in O.S.No.67 of 2024 and transfer the same to
any of the District Court at Madurai.
3. The defendant in O.S.No.68 of 2024 and the defendant in O.S.No.
67 of 2024 are the petitioners in the present transfer petitions, who are the
husband and wife.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
4. The respondent in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.640 of 2024 Balamani @
Balusamy (hereinafter called as 'Plaintiff Balamani') has filed a suit in
O.S.No.68 of 2024 for recovery of Rs.20,81,400/- due on the promissory
note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.
640 of 2024 Velmurugan (hereinafter called as 'Defendant Velmurugan')
with interest and costs and the same is pending on the file of the IV
Additional District Court, Udumalpet. The respondent in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)
No.643 of 2024 Padmavathi (hereinafter called as 'Plaintiff Padmavathi'),
who is the wife of Plaintiff Balamani, has filed a suit in O.S.No.67 of 2024
for recovery of Rs.10,47,000/- due on the promissory note alleged to have
been executed by the petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.643 of 2024
Umadevi (hereinafter called as 'Defendant Umadevi') with interest and
costs and the same is pending on the file of the IV Additional District
Court, Udumalpet.
5. The case of the petitioners/defendants is that Defendant Umadevi
borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from Plaintiff Balamani in December 2018
and again borrowed Rs.2 lakhs in July-2021, Rs.3 lakhs in August-2021
and Rs.1 lakh in November-2021, totalling Rs.7 lakhs, that Defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
Umadevi and Velmurugan have given unfilled stamped signed promissory
notes, unfilled stamped signed cheques, unfilled signed Rs.20/- stamp
papers, original title deeds of the property belonging to Defendant
Velmurugan and xerox copy of the title deeds of immovable properties
belonging to Defendant Umadevi as security for the above loan
transactions, that Plaintiff Balamani has filed a suit against Defendant
Velmurugan in O.S.No.68 of 2024 alleging that he had executed a
promissory note for Rs.20 lakhs and filed another suit in O.S.No.67 of
2024 through his wife Plaintiff Padmavathi against Defendant Umadevi
alleging that she borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from her, that Plaintiff
Balamani had set up one Manikumar and filed two other suits in O.S.Nos.
222 and 223 of 2024 against them and also set up other persons to file two
complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that though
Defendant Velmurugan has borrowed Rs.7 lakhs and the said loan was
already discharged, Plaintiff Balamani has been filing cases after cases,
that Defendants Velmurugan and Umadevi are residing at Madurai and
find it very difficult to defend the cases at Udumalpet and that therefore
they were constrained to file the present transfer petitions for transferring
the suits from the file of the IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
any of the District Court at Madurai.
6. The Plaintiffs Balamani and Padmavathi have filed separate
counter affidavit raising objections and further stated that Defendant
Velmurugan had obtained a loan for Rs.20 lakhs and executed a
promissory note at Plaintiff Balamani's house at Tiruppur, that since the
loan was not repaid after issuance of legal notice, Plaintiff Balamani filed
the suit in O.S.No.68 of 2024 and is pending on the file of the IV
Additional District Court, Udumalpet, that since Defendant Velmurugan
was taking steps to alienate the property, Plaintiff Balamani filed two
applications in I.A.No.2 of 2024 for interim injunction restraining the
alienation and I.A.No.3 of 2024 for attachment before judgment, that
Defendant Umadevi has obtained loan of Rs.10 lakhs from Plaintiff
Padmavathi and executed a promissory note at their house at Tiruppur, that
since the amount was not paid after issuance of legal notice, the suit was
filed in O.S.No.67 of 2024, that the cause of action for the suits arose at
Tiruppur and hence, rightly filed suits before the Courts at Udumalpet and
that since Defendants Velmurugan and Umadevi have not canvassed any
valid reasons or grounds for transferring the petitions, the same are liable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants
would submit that as per Section 20 CPC, suit is to be filed at the place
where the defendants resides or carries on business, that both the
defendants are residing at Madurai, that Defendant Velmurugan is working
as a driver in TNSTC, Madurai, that the property against which injunction
and attachment was sought for is situated at Madurai, that they are finding
it difficult to travel from Madurai to Udumalpet to attend the hearings and
that therefore they were constrained to file the above transfer petitions.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs
would submit that Section 20(c) CPC stipulates that the suit can be filed
where the cause of action wholly or in part arises, that the petitioners/
defendants borrowed loans at the respondents/plaintiffs' house at Tiruppur
District and that since cause of action arose in that place, the suits were
rightly laid before the Courts at Udumalpet.
9. Admittedly, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed suits against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
petitioners/defendants for recovery of money due on the promissory notes
alleged to have been executed by them and the same are pending before
the IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet.
10. The main contention of the petitioners/defendants is that
Plaintiff Balamani had utilized the unfilled signed documents and by
setting up other persons filed civil cases as well as complaints under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through other persons and that
therefore they are finding it difficult to defend the cases at Udumalpet.
Whether the above defence putforth by the petitioners/defendants is true
or not can only be gone into, in the suits pending before Udumalpet Court
and the same cannot be gone into in the present transfer petitions.
11. Section 20 CPC contemplates that the suits can be instituted
where the defendants reside or cause of action arises. Though the
petitioners/ defendants are residing at Madurai, the respondents/plaintiffs,
by referring that cause of action arose at the place of borrowal, filed the
suits before the Courts at Udumalpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
12. As rightly relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/plaintiffs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Subramaniam
Swamy Vs. Ramakrishna Hegde reported in 1990 (1) SCC 4 has held that
if more than one court has jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the
plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court and the defendant
cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular court convenient to
him and that the mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may
not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial
in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises
Ltd. Vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp reported in (2009) 8 SCC
646 relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has
held that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and he may institute a suit
having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 16 to 20 of the Code
of Civil Procedure in any civil court within whose jurisdiction inter alia a
cause of action arises and that if the jurisdiction of the civil court is not
barred or if he having regard to common law principle is entitled to
maintain an action in two different forums, he may choose one of them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
14. The respondents being the plaintiffs and dominus litus have
chosen the place where the cause of action had arisen and as such, the
same cannot be found fault with.
15. The petitioners have not shown that proceeding with the cases at
IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet will result in denial of justice.
The petitioners have also not given any other valid reasons or grounds for
transferring the cases. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation
to hold that the above petitions are absolutely devoid of merits and the
same are liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, these Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions stand
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
24.01.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
To
1. The IV Additional District Judge,
Udumalpet.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Pre-Delivery Common Order made in
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.640 and 643 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.15271 and 15465 of 2024
Dated : 24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
