[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rajalakshmi vs P.Saravanan on 19 January, 2026
Tr.C.M.P.No.226 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
Tr.C.M.P.No.226 of 2025
and
CMP No.4296 of 2025
Rajalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs
P.Saravanan ... Respondent
PRAYER inTr.C.M.P:
This Transfer Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 C.P.C., to
withdraw O.S.No.320 of 2024 pending before the Sub Judge, Udumalpet and
transfer the same to the Subordinate Court, Theni.
PRAYER in C.M.P:
To stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.320 of 2024 pending before the
Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet until the disposal of the present transfer petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Jeyaram
For Respondent : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
Tr.C.M.P.No.226 of 2025
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has opposed the
transfer through counter pleadings and citations.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.320 of 2024 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, instituted by the respondent for recovery of a sum
of Rs.9,77,700/- based on a promissory note.
3. The petitioner seeks transfer of the suit to the Subordinate Court, Theni,
contending that she is a widow residing at Andipatti Taluk, Theni District; that she
is aged about 56 years and suffering from arthritis; she has no independent source
of income and that attending the Court at Udumalpet without assistance on every
hearing would cause serious hardship and that there is no convenient transport
facility from Theni to Udumalpet. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has
filed an application seeking security or attachment before judgment in respect of
the petitioner’s immovable property situated within Theni District.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent. while opposing the transfer,
relied upon the orders of this Court in Tr.C.M.P. Nos.1180, 1181 and 1182 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
dated 31.10.2025 and C.M.A. No.1461 of 2023 dated 03.08.2023 to contend that
inconvenience alone is not a ground for transfer and that attachment before
judgment can be ordered even in respect of properties outside the territorial
jurisdiction.
5. There can be no dispute with the legal proposition that Order XXXVIII
Rule 5 CPC does not restrict the power of the Court to attach properties beyond its
territorial limits. However, the issue in the present petition is not the jurisdiction of
the trial Court to pass interlocutory orders, but whether transfer of the suit is
warranted in exercise of powers under Section 24 CPC.
6. As regards the submission that inconvenience alone cannot be a ground
for transfer, it is well settled that there is no straitjacket formula in matters under
Section 24 CPC. The Court is required to assess comparative hardship, balance of
convenience, and the interests of justice on a case-to-case basis.
7. While it is true that in Tr.C.M.P. Nos.1180, 1181 and 1182 of 2025
dated 31.10.2025 the petitioner was aged 85 years and the respondent therein was
also a woman, that circumstance by itself cannot eclipse other relevant factors, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
court declined transfer taking into account the pendency of connected testamentary
original petitions and succession proceedings, as also the overall factual matrix of
that case. The said decision therefore turned on its own facts and cannot be applied
as a precedent laying down any inflexible rule against transfer merely because
attachment before judgment is sought. In the present case, the petitioner, has
pleaded specific medical ailments, a widow whose husband died on 06.07.2024
and has demonstrated practical difficulty in undertaking repeated travel to
Udumalpet. The respondent has not demonstrated any substantial prejudice that
would be caused by transfer.
8. On an overall consideration of the balance of convenience and
comparative hardship, this Court is satisfied that transfer of the suit to Theni would
subserve the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, Tr.C.M.P. No.226 of 2025 is allowed. O.S. No.320 of
2024 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, is withdrawn and
transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni. The Subordinate Judge,
Udumalpet, shall transmit the entire records to the Subordinate Court, Theni,
within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the Subordinate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
Court, Theni shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. Interim stay granted
by this Court on 25.02.2025 shall stand vacated and C.M.P. No.4296 of 2025 is
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
19.01.2026
mfa
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1. Sub Judge, Udumalpet
2. Subordinate Court, Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
mfa
and
19.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 01:45:01 pm )
