Ist Petitioner vs Ist Respondent - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 4506

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2011 Supreme(Mad) 4506

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Ist Petitioner
Versus
Ist Respondent
A.No. 4629 of 2011 in C.S.No. 259 of 1997
Decided On :Decided on : 17-11-2011

Important Points

The provisions of Sec.24 of C.P.C. cannot be invoked to transfer suits between parties merely on the ground that suits between different parties are pending in different courts.

Subject

Civil Law - Transfer of Suits

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.24

Headnote

TRANSFER - Civil Procedure Code - The court dismissed the transfer application seeking to transfer suits pending in a lower court to the current court, as the subject matter and parties involved were not the same, and the application seemed to be an attempt to delay the proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought transfer of suits pending in a lower court to the current court, citing the common property as the ground for transfer.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the subject matter and parties involved in the suits were not the same, and the application appeared to be an attempt to delay the proceedings.

Issues: Transfer of suits, invocation of Sec.24 of C.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Sec.24 of C.P.C. cannot be invoked to transfer suits between parties merely on the ground that suits between different parties are pending in different courts.

Final Decision: The transfer application was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000, and the applicant was directed to deposit the cost with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

Judgment :

VINOD K. SHARMA., J.

1. The applicant prays for transfer of O.S.Nos.4087 of 2005 and 2374 of 2008 pending in the Court of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to this Court for being tried along with C.S.No.259 of 1997 pending in this Court.

2. Inspite of grant of last opportunity, no counter has been filed by the non applicant.

3. The undisputed facts are that C.S.No.259 of 1997 has been filed by M/s.N.Selvarajulu Chetty Trust against S.Sarvothaman, N.Rathinavelu, N.Narayani, N.Sumathi,B.Jayakumar, J.Gnanaprakasam, S.Padmanabhan, Munishi Nanda, Ashish Nanda,S.V.Builders, J.Ashok Kumar, Uma K.Ramanathan, Vijaya Vaidyanathan, Saroja Devi, Uma Parvathy MahendrakumarBothra Ramachandran, P.S.Alamelu, S.Annapoorni, M.P.Moidu, C.P.Nasina Moidu, S.Sriram, Lakshmi Sriram, C.kamalam, Lakshmi Ammal Trust, rep. By its Managing Trustee S.Venkataraman, M.Ramachandran, Kuljeet Singh Bhatia, Dr.Asha Chakravarthy, Srivatsan, Anuradha, Gurumurthy Natarajan, L.Balakumaraswamy, Meenakshi Ammal (deceased), V.Murugesan, M.Angammal. Whereas O.S.No.4087 of 2005 has been filed by V.Murugesan and M.Angammal against S.Neelaya-thatchiammal, S.Gunasekaran and Kalaivanan @ S.Babu. The plaintiff in C.S.No.259 of 1997 is not a party to this suit.

4. Whereas O.S.No.2347 of 2008 has been filed by S.Neelayathatchiammal, S.Guanasekaran, Kalaivanan, V.Vijaya Babu and V.Abirami against V.Murugesan and Angammal. In this suit, again plaintiff in C.S.No.259 of 1997 is not a party.

5. The plaintiff in C.S.No.259 of 1997 has filed a suit for declaration of title with the consequential relief of permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.

6. O.S.No.4087 of 2005 has been filed for declaration and injunction to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2004 passed in O.S.No.6360 of 2004.

7. It is the case of the applicant that O.S.No.4087 of 2005 filed in the Court of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai was dismissed in default. But, subsequently restored. It was during interregnum period, i.e. O.S.No.2374 of 2008 was filed.

8. It is surprising that while application for restoration of suit was moved, another suit was also filed in this Court.

9. The only ground on which the applicant seeks transfer of suits pending in the Court of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is that the property is the same. This cannot be a ground for transfer of the suit as the subject matter of the suit cannot be said to be same as in one suit, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2004. Similarly, the parties are also same, as admittedly, the plaintiff in C.S.No.259 of 1997 is not a party to any of the suits pending before the City Civil Court, Chennai.

10. The provisions of Sec.24 of C.P.C. cannot be invoked to get the suit between the parties transferred, merely on the ground that the suit between the different parties is pending in the different Courts, where the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suits are different.

11. As already observed above, the subject matter is also identical except the fact that part of the properties may be common. The object of this application therefore seems to be to delay the proceedings.

12. The applicant has not approached this Court bonafide with clean hands. The application therefore is totally misconceived is ordered to be dismissed with cost which are assessed as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The applicant is directed to deposit cost with Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Madras.