K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS application raises a short but interesting and important question of law.

( 2 ) THE petitioner and the respondent entered into a memo of understanding on 19-11-1994 for the purpose of securing joint venture collaboration agreement between t. T. I. Limited and the respondent. Alleging default and misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, an application in O. P. No. 98/1995 has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner on 17-12-1995 before the A. P. Consumer disputes Redressal Commission at hyderabad (for short, the Consumer forum ) for the recovery of compensation of rs. 6 lakhs with interest and costs. The petitioner also filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 89/1996 on the file of the II Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, alleging breach of memo of understanding and sought relief of money decree against the respondent.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has filed this application alleging that the claim and the counter-claim have arisen on rival allegations on the strength of the memo of understanding dated 19-11-1994, that there is likelihood of conflicting judgments, that the proceedings pending before the consumer Forum are summary in nature and that the parties are the same, and requesting that O. P. No. 98/1995 pending before the Consumer Forum should be withdrawn from its file and be transferred to the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, to be tried along with O. S. No. 89/1996. The respondent has opposed the application on the ground that the consumer Forum is not subordinate to the high Court within the purview of Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed on this count only.

( 4 ) THE question that falls for determination is whether the Consumer forum is subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 24 of the Code of civil Procedure?.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relying on the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others, has argued that the High Court has got jurisdiction to judicial review of Judicial decisions and has been vested with the power to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction. He has further argued that the civil Court has jurisdiction to try suits of civil nature under Section 9 of the Code of civil Procedure. The jurisdiction of Civil court cannot be inferred as barred where statute does not specifically oust its jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on the cases of Dhulabhai vs. State of M. P. , Ram prasad and others vs. Assistant Director of consolidation and others and Saraswathi and others vs. Lachanna. On the authority of the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Senior Divisional manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , it has been lastly argued that the Consumer forum should not decide complicated questions of fact, the decision of which requires voluminous oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, the case pending before the Consumer Forum should be transferred to the Court of the II Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for disposal according to law.

( 6 ) RELYING on the cases Peyyeti jagannadha Rao vs. Pamarti Venkateswara Rao and others and P. V. Subrahmanyachari vs. Valasala Chandramouli and others, it has been urged by the learned Counsel of the respondent that, the Consumer Forum is not a Court subordinate to the High Court and, therefore, the application is not maintainable.

( 7 ) THE relevant portion of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted below:"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal - (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the high Court or the District Court may at any stage (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) xxxxxxxxx (ii) transfer the same for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document