IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that transfer of proceedings under the CPC requires a clear connection between cases, and that costs awarded must not exceed statutory limits, particularly in cases of false or vexatious claims.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. Petitioner is challenging the impugned order dtd. 22/12/2023 passed in CMA No.157 of 2023 by the Principal District Judge, thereby refusing to transfer the Execution Proceedings pending before the said Court to the Court of District Judge-I Mapusa, wherein civil proceedings are pending between the parties.

4. Mr. Walwaikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Execution Application No.283 of 2022 and Execution Application No.25 of 2023 filed by the respondents are pending before the Court of Principal District Judge whereas Civil Suit no.12 of 2023 and Civil Suit No.96 of 2023 are pending before the District Judge-I. All these proceedings are arising out of the same dispute and the petitioner has to face different proceedings wherein orders are passed by two Presiding Officers which are conflicting in nature.

5. Mr Walwaikar, submits that Execution Applications pending before the learned Principal District Judge are arising out of the order dtd. 17/3/2022 passed by the GRERA. He submits that as per said orders passed by the GRERA, Mamlatdar took action for execution of monetary part and attached property bearing survey No.11/1 existing in village Socorro worth Rs.10.00 crores and sold it in auction merely for Rs.3.30 crores. Mr Walwaikar, would then submit that learned Principal District Judge ignoring such recovery carried out by the Mamlatdar, passed an order without giving an opportunity to the petitioner thereby directing the petitioner to deposit an amount awarded by GRERA. Similarly, another order was passed by the learned Principal District Judge and that too without considering the reply filed by the petitioner which shows that learned Presiding Officer is carrying a prejudice mind or bias approach against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is having apprehension that he may not get justice and therefore applied for transfer of two execution applications pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge to the Court of District Judge-I wherein two civil proceedings are pending.

6. Mr Walwaikar, then would submit that after the attachment and auction of the property by the Mamlatdar, wife of the petitioner filed a civil suit against the said Mamlatdar for declaration that such action on the part of the Mamlatdar including attachment, auction is null and void. Said Civil suit is registered as Civil Suit No.96 of 2023.

7. Mr Walwaikar, would then submit that another suit is pending between the parties bearing Civil Suit no.12 of 2023 which is filed by some of the respondents and thus all these matters which are connected with the same subject matter, needs to be transferred to one Court in order to avoid conflicting decisions.

8. Mr Walwaikar, then submit that while rejecting the application for transfer, learned Principal District Judge awarded costs which is beyond its jurisdiction. He submits that Sec. 35-A of CPC puts a restriction on imposing cost however, learned Principal District Judge by ignoring such power and by exceeding its jurisdiction awarded Rs.20, 000.00 to be paid to each of the respondents. He submits that this order itself shows the approach of the Presiding Officer which tantamounts to prejudicial mind.

9. Mr Walwaikar, would then submit that no prejudice is going to cause to the respondents, if all the matters are taken up by one Court.

10. Mr. N. Takkekar, on the other hand strongly objected to the claim raised by the petitioner on different grounds. First he claimed that the matters are not connected to each other and even subject matter is different. He submits that suit filed by wife of the petitioner is completely different wherein present respondents were not made parties. Even otherwise said suit is in connection with a property situated at Socorro whereas order passed by GRERA deals with the property existing at Mapusa.

11. Mr Takkekar wou