A consolidated transfer petition for multiple lawsuits is impermissible under civil procedure rules; separate applications are required for each suit.

ORDER :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

2.The revision petitioner is figuring as the defendant in as many as five suits. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.68 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli for the relief of specific performance. The second respondent herein filed O.S.No.196 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli for recovery of money. The third respondent herein filed O.S.No.370 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli for recovery of money. The fourth respondent herein filed O.S.No.22 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli for recovery of money. The fifth respondent herein filed O.S.No.167 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli for recovery of money. The petitioner herein filed Tr.O.P.No.309 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli for transferring the suits instituted in O.S.No.167 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and O.S.No.22 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli to the Court of III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, to be tried along with the other three suits mentioned above. The Court below vide order dated 02.07.2024 dismissed the transfer original petition. Questioning the same, this civil revision petition came to be filed.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of the civil revision petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

4. I am not swayed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, Tr.O.P.No.309 of 2022 itself is not maintainable. Rule 46(3) of the CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE deals with applications for transfer. The said rule is as follows:-

“46. Application for transfer:-

(1) .............

(2) ............

(3) Separate application:- A separate application shall be presented in respect of each suit of which transfer is sought and the court shall, in each case record in writing its reasons for its order.”

5. When the rule envisages filling of a separate application in respect of each suit which is sought to be transferred, the petitioner herein could not have filed a consolidated / composite transfer original petition for transferring two suits pending before two different Courts. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kearala High Court in the decision reported in 2016 1 KLT 696 (Dhanu Joby Vs. Joby Cheriyan) held that when more than one proceedings are sought to be transferred, separate application shall be filed in respect of each of such proceeding. The petition filed by the petitioner herein is not in consonance with Rule 46(3) of the CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE . I, therefore, hold that the transfer petition is not maintainable.

6. There is yet another reason for negativing the petitioner's request. The petitioner might be the common denominator in all the five suits. He is figuring as the sole defendant. But the plaintiffs are different. The cause of action is also different. While the suit filed by the first respondent herein is for specific performance, the other suits are for recovery of money. When the cause of action is not one and the same, it would not be proper to club them for joint or even simultaneous trial.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed that the transfer original petition was filed under Section 22 r/w. S