JUDGMENT

P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Both the parties agree for disposal of the Civil Revision at the stage of hearing on admission.

2. Heard. The Civil Revision is disposed of in the follow¬ing manner.

3. This revision is directed against rejection of an application under Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘the Code’) as per the impugned order dated 22.1.2000 by the District Judge, Balasore in Misc. Case No. 70 of 1998.

4. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 544 of 1995-I pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bala¬sore, wherein prayer has been made for a decree for partition. In that suit plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 1103 of 1994 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balasore are the defendants 8,9 and 10. It is stated in the impugned order and also by learned counsel for the petitioners that lot No. 10 of the plaint scheduled property in the above suit for partition is the suit property in O.S.No. 1103 of 1994-I.

5. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1103 of 1994 are four in number. As noted above, plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 of that suit are the de¬fendants 8,9 and 10 in the above noted suit for partition. Plain¬tiff No. 1 in the suit for partition is defendant No. 6 in O.S.No. 1103 of 1994. O.S.No. 1103 of 1994 has been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) claiming for damages of Rs. 200/- on the allegations that the suit property, i.e., plot No. 47 of C.S.Khata No. 18 in Mouza Palasia had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs branch in a family partition and the defendants forcibly and illegally came and caught fishes from the tank situated on the suit land and thereby caused a loss and damage of Rs. 200/-. They also pray for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. Hereinafter that suit is referred to as suit for damage.

6. On the aforesaid background, the prayer of the plaintiffs in the suit for partition is for transfer of the suit for damage from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) for hearing of both the suits by the same Court but that prayer was turned down by learned District Judge as per the impugned order squarely on the grounds that both the suits are not between the same parties and the relief claimed in each of the suit is different and distinct from the other.

7. While reiterating the grounds advanced in the Court below and pressing for the prayer made therein learned counsel for the petitioners states that learned District Judge could not properly comprehend and appreciate the scope and jurisdiction vested in him under Section 24 of the Code and therefore errone¬ously rejected his application and non-interference will occasion a failure of justice.

Learned counsel for the opposite party (plaintiffs in the suit for damage) on the other hand supports the impugned order and states that when the issues are not same and the scope of adjudication depends upon distinguishable facts and issues, there¬fore learned District Judge was quite justified in rejecting the application under Section 24 of the Code.

In course of argument of the following reported decisions have been relied on and referred to. It appropriate to refer to the citations before deciding the issue on the basis of the above stated facts and contention.

8. In the case of M/s. Nigam Films and another v. Indian Bank, Danpur Branch, Kendrapara and others, 80 (1995) C.L.T. 161, this Court rejected the application for transfer of the suit which was sought for on the ground of convenience of the defend¬ants. This Court took note of the fact that the suit, transfer of which was sought for by the defendants, was pending at the stage of delivery of judgment after conclusion of hearing. Therefore the prayer for transfer on the ground of convenience to defend¬ants did not find favour of this Court. That ratio has no ap¬plicability to the facts and circumstances and the question involved in the present case.

9. In the case of Purna Chandra Mohanty and other