AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in Tr.O.P. No. 259 of 2007 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai. The revision petitioner herein has filed Tr.O.P. No. 259 of 2007 u/s 24 of CPC before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
praying for an order to withdraw and transfer the suit O.S. No. 5232 of 2007 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to be
tried along with O.S. No. 3596 of 2007 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for effectual adjudication and determination of
the issues between the parties herein and after contest, the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has dismissed the petition.
The learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing orders in Tr.O.P. No. 259 of 2007 has inter alia opined that '' if the
transfer is allowed, it would only create confusion and delay the proceedings ultimately resulting in undesirable results and it is for the plaintiffs to
choose the Court and he cannot compelled to allow his case to be tried along with another suit where he is not a party and in this case, if transfer is
ordered then the respondents 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 5232 of 2007 will be compelled to conduct the suit which they are not
concerned with and resultantly has dismissed the petition.
The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has failed to note
that the issues are common by virtue of the fact that the property concerned with the schedule of the suit is one and the same and even the interests
claimed by the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs in O.S. No. 5232 of 2007 is common in nature and therefore, the transfer
petition ought to have been allowed by the Court in the interest of justice and the balance of convenience and further that the property in regard to
O.S.No.5232 of 2007 pending on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and O.S. No. 3596 of 2007 pending on the file of XII
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai pertaining to property is one and the same should have allowed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai and further that the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has taken into account that the first respondent and the second respondent
are not parties in O.S. No. 3596 of 2007 filed by the petitioner as plaintiff, has come to a conclusion in dismissing the transfer petition ignoring the
fact that the property concerned with the main issue of holding possession under law is one and the same and the very right which is claimed by the
petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2 are only way of emanating the rights accrued from the third respondent as legal heir of deceased
mother who claimed the absolute ownership and these aspects have not taken note of by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai while
dealing with the transfer petition and that the balance of convenience and also the property in respect of both the suits by way of schedule is one
and the same and these aspects of the matter has not been borne in mind by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and therefore
prays for allowing this revision petition in the interest of justice.
It is the stand of respondents 1 and 2 that the decision to be rendered in O.S. No. 3596 of 2007 will have bearing on the present proceeding is
clearly devoid of merits and that O.S. No. 3596 of 2007 has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction against the third respondent as well as
for the relief of mandatory injunction for a direction to return the original documents has no reliance to the present suit filed by the respondents and
further that O.S. No. 4293 of 2007 has been filed for a Specific Performance, directing the third respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of
the petitioner herein and that the suit for Specific Performance which has been projected in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 11.3.1992 has
no nexus to O.S. No. 3596 of 2007 and the consolidation of two suits does not arise and more over that in O.S. No. 4293 of 2007, the
respondents are not parties and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court in Tr.O.P. No. 259 of 2007 need not be interfered with by this
Court sitting under revision.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 cites the decision reported in Lalita Rajya Lakshmi and Another Vs. State of Bihar
and Another, wherein it has been observed as follows:
Now, the question is, whether all the circumstances stated above taken together justify the cases to be transferred to another court, as prayed for
by the petitioners. In support of their respective contentions, the parties have placed before me several decisions in order to show what are good
grounds and, what are not sufficient grounds for, transfer. Such cases are: Mohur Singh v. Ghuriba 15 W.R. (P.C) 8 (at P.10) (A); Jawahir Kumar
Devi v. Naresh Chandra AIR 1920 Pat. 365 : 1 Fat L.T. 389 (B): Mula Naramma Vs. Mula Rengamma, (C) Khuaja Ahad Shah v. Mt. Ayshan
Begum AIR 1923 Lah 564 (D) and Binode Behary Bannerjee Vs. King-Emperor, (E). From the above cases, the following grounds of transfer,
inter alia are well established. They are (1) When the Superior Court is satisfied that the proceedings in one Court constitute an abuse of the
process of the Courts (2) When it is clear that some prejudice has been created, and that a fair hearing, and an impartial adjudication, could not be
reasonably expected, even though such a state of things has been brought about by the conduct of the very party applying for the transfer (3)
Where there is any reasonable ground-for supposing that a prejudice against a party''s pleader has in any manner or measure affected the Judicial
attitude of the Court towards the petitioner, or his case; and (4) if a party feels that he is not likely to have a fair trial before a particular Court. In
such a case, however, it is true that the reasonable apprehension on the part of the litigant should receive consideration, but at the same time the
apprehension must be such as a reasonable man might reasonably be expected to have.
Another decision is pressed into service on the side of respondents 1 and 2 in Surapuneni Rani Vs. Surapuneni Latha and Another, wherein it has
been held as follows:
Normally, the proceedings are transferred from one Court to another, at the instance of defendants, mostly on the grounds of convenience or
absence of territorial jurisdiction in the Courts, where the proceedings are instituted. It is in exceptional cases, that the proceedings are transferred
at the instance of the plaintiffs/petitioners on the grounds of convenience. It is the petitioners, who have chosen the respective Courts, having been
convinced that the territorial jurisdiction vested in the respective Courts as regards the concerned subject-matter. The same state of affairs
continues. The reliefs claimed in all the four suits are separate and independent of each other. The possibility of emergence of any conflicting
decisions is too remote.
The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that there is no commonality of issues involved and no case has been made out
by the revision petitioner for transferring the suits from one Court to another as mentioned in the transfer original petition and further that the
learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has passed a reasoned and cogent order in dismissing the application and the same need not be
interfered with by this Court. He further contends that the civil revision petition filed by the revision petitioner is not maintainable in law and to lend
support of his contentions relies on the decision reported in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2003 STPL (LE) 32172 SC 32 (para8)
wherein the Honourable Apex Court has observed as follows:
The High Court in exercise or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of
evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
He also further relies on the decision reported in Asrumati Debi Vs. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot and Others, wherein inter alia held that ""...the
order in the present case neither affects the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit itself, nor does it terminate or dispose of the
suit on any ground. An order for transfer cannot be placed in the same category as an order rejecting a plaint or one dismissing a suit on a
preliminary ground....
On an over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that in a civil suit the plaintiff is a
dominus litus and it is for him/her to choose the proper and competent forum and he/she cannot be forced to allow the case to be tried along with
another suit to which he/she is not admittedly a party. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the respondents 1 and
2 in the revision petition have admitted that they are tenants and therefore there is no impediment for allowing the transfer petition in the interest of
justice.
It is an axiomatic fact that when a Court allows or dismisses the transfer original petition, then the Court of law is not dealing with the rights and
liabilities of parties. The prime consideration for a Court of law is to see whether in the suits, common issues are involved or not. Admittedly, in the
present case on hand, there is no commonality of issues between the two suits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plurality of proceedings has to
be avoided etc. If a transfer is allowed, then the respondents/plaintiffs in O.S. No. 5232 of 2007 will be perforced to conduct the trial of the suit
over rival claims in regard to the property to which they do not have any concern. Suffice it to point out that the balance of convenience is not in
favour of the revision petitioner/transfer original petitioner and that the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has not made out a case to the
satisfaction of this Court to transfer the suit in O.S. No. 5232 of 2007 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to be tried
along with O.S. No. 3596/2007 which is pending on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and viewed in that perspective,
the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the transfer original petition is correct in the eye of law and
the same is not to be interfered with by this Court sitting in revision and resultantly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed
in the interest of justice.
At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that I.A. No. 13499 of 2008 in
O.S. No. 3596 of 2007 has been filed by the revision petitioner before the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the same has been
posted to 28.11.2008 for impleading the proposed parties viz., Respondents 1 and 2 in this petition/tenants.
In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Judge in Tr.O.P. No. 259 of 2007 on the file of the Principal
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is affirmed. It is made clear that the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is directed to deal with
the I.A. No. 13499 of 2008 in O.S. No. 3596 of 2007 pending on his file independently uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this
Court in this revision and to dispose of the same, after giving due opportunity to all the parties and to proceed with further in the manner known to
law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos 1 and 2 are also dismissed.