The court clarified that transfer of a suit is not warranted unless identical issues exist between cases; differing subjects preclude transfer.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--This is a petition under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.609/2018 titled as Uday Viri vs. Bhavna Bhatia & Ors., pending in the Court of learned ADJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to this Court where a civil suit bearing CS (OS) No.314/2021 is pending.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit pending before the District Court is required to be transferred before this Court as party to the suit are common, the subject matter of both the suits are identical and identical evidences are required to be considered for adjudication of both the suits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits in fact the front portion of the joint family property bearing No.L-385-D, Plot measuring 30 Sq. Yards was sold to the petitioner and 256 sq. Yards of L-385-D plot, which was at the back of the above said plot, was leased to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was stipulated in the lease deed dated 18.10.2011 that construction of three floors shall be carried out on joint and common plots. It has been stated that the construction has been raised in such a manner that there is a single slab lenters and combined construction of both pieces of land. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that around Rs.1 crore were spent on construction by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the construction in no manner can be segregated as the lenters, construction and walls are common. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1, in violation of lease deed, constructed one more floor on the terrace and started residing there.

3. It has been submitted that in an FAO No. 567/2018, arising out of civil suit bearing CS No.609/2018, a consent order was passed. Vide this order, the rent of 50% was allowed to be deposited in this Court and considering the claims and excessive amounts charged, rest 50% was allowed to be released only on subject of securing the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in CS No.609/2018, the counter-claim was filed by the petitioners and transfer petitions bearing numbers TR.P.(C) 31/2009 and TR.P.(C) 32/2009 were also filed before this Court. The transfer petitions were withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to approach the concerned Court seeking return of the counter-claim along with the court fee, in order to file the same as a separate suit before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner also reserved his right to file a transfer petition once his counter-claim had been instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since evidence to be dealt in both the cases are identical, therefore, it would be in the interests of justice, if CS No.609/2018 is withdrawn from the Court of learned ADJ, Patiala House Courts and is transferred to this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a lock-in period of 15 years and the eviction petition could not have been filed before that. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he has been made to construct the property. It has also been submitted that in fact after taking the front portion on rent, the same was demolished and the fresh construction was carried out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he reserves this right to file appropriate proceedings under Order II Rule 2 CPC vis-a-vis the respondent No.2 - Prem Prakash.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed this application and has submitted that the suit filed by him before the learned Trial Court is f