Rajesh vs Nagar Palika, Ratlam - 2002 Supreme(MP) 330

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
S.C. Agrawal for applicant; Bhagat and Katkani for respondents.

Headnote:Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 24 and 10 -- two suits of same nature -parties same -- property involved in both suits also same -- suit pending in Court of Civil Judge transferred to Court of ADJ with direction to dispose of both separately but on same day.

        flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 24 rFkk 10 && ,d&gh izd`fr ds nks okn && i{kdkj Hkh ugha && nksuksa oknksa ea varxZzLr laifRr Hkh ogh && flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ds U;k;ky; eas yafcr okn vij ls’ku U;k;k/kh’k ds U;k;ky; dks bl funsZ‘k ds lkFk varfjr fd nksuksa dk fuiVkjk i`Fkd~r% fdarq ,d gh fnu fd;k tk,xkA

        This Order shall also govern the disposal of connected Civil Revision No. 1327/2001 filed on behalf of the same applicant against the respondents aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2001 passed by I1nd ADJ, Railam in Civil Suit No. 274/2000.

        Briefly stated the facts of the case are that with regard to some disputed ghumti two suits have been filed, one suit filed by respondent No.2 Devilal against respondent No.1. Municipal Corporation Ratlam for the relief of injunction. The present applicant Rajesh also filed a suit with regard to same disputed ghumti against respondent No.1 and also against respondent No.2 seeking relief of declaration and injunction. The two suits are pending in different Courts. Suit filed on behalf of applicant Rajesh is pending in the Court of I1nd ADJ, Ratlam, whereas the suit filed on behalf of respondent Devilal is pending in the Court of IVth Civil Judge Class II Ratlam bearing Civil Suit No. 20A/2000.

        On behalf of applicant, an application U/s. 24 of the CPC was filed before the District Judge for transfer of Civil Suit No. 20A/2000 pending in the Court of IVth Civil Judge Class II Ratlam to the Court of I1nd ADJ at Ratlam. In the application, it is stated that as the two suits are related with the same disputed ghumti and almost the parties of the suits are also same, the reliefs claimed in both the suits are also similar as such, to avoid abuse of the process of the Court and contrary findings of the two Courts, the Civil suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge Class II may be transferred to IInd ADJ, Ratlam. The said application was opposed on behalf of respondent No.2. Devilal.

        The learned District Judge, by the impugned order, rejected the application filed U/s. 24 of the CPC mainly on the ground that the application should have been filed u/s. 10 of the CPC.

        In view of the order of the learned District Judge Ratlam in Civil Misc. Case No. 17/2000, the applicant filed an application before the ADJ at Ratlam for hearing of the two suits simultaneously by the same Court u/s. 10 of the CPC. The learned ADJ, by order dated 20.11.2001 which is impugned in the connected revision dismissed the said application on the ground that the provisions of section 10 are not attracted. Aggrieved by the said orders of the District Judge Ratlam and the IInd ADJ. Ratlam the applicant has filed the aforesaid Civil Revisions. .
        The only contention of the L.C. for applicant is that as in both the suits the subject matter of the dispute is same, the relief claimed are also similar in nature and the contesting parties are also same, as such, it is in the interest of justice the two suits should be tried by the same

        Court so that there may not be different findings with regard to same subject matter. The L.C. also submitted that the Civil Suit which is pending in the Court of IInd AdJ Ratlam cannot be transferred to Civil Judge Class II for want of jurisdiction whereas the suit pending before the IVth Civil Judge Class II Ratlam can be transferred to the Court of ADJ Ratlam which is a Court of higher jurisdiction. A reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in case of Gaya Prasad v. Kishorilal (2000 (1) MPWN 215.

        As against this, the L.C. for respondent No. 2 supported the two impugned orders under revision and submitted that the transfer of the suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge would not be necessary. The L.C. for respondent No. 1 supported the contention of the applicant.

        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as also the ratio of law laid down by this Court in case of Gaya Prasad (supra), I find that the revisions filed on behalf of the applicant deserves to be allowed. The two suits pending in two different Courts in connection with the same property also between the same parties and with regard to similar reliefs are required to be heard and decided by the same Court. As such, the District Judge, in my opinion, has committed an error in refusing transfer of Civil Suit No. 20A12000 pending in the Court of IVth Civil Judge Class II Ratlam to the Court of IInd ADJ, Ratlam. Even if the provisions of section 10 are applied the law requires that the two suits should be heard and decided by the same Court to avoid contrary findings of two different Courts in the two suits. The suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge Class II can be transferred to Court of IInd ADJ Ratlam; a Court of higher jurisdiction but vice-versa is not possible. .

        Consequently, the two revisions filed on behalf of the applicant are allowed and it is directed that the Civil Suit No. 20A/2000 pending in the Court of IVth Civil Judge Class II Ratlam be transferred to the Court of IInd ADJ, Ratlam for disposal according to law along-with Civil Suit No. 27 A/99 pending in that Court. It is further directed that ADJ shall hold separate trials of both the suits and dispose of the two suits on the same day. Copy of the order be sent to the Courts concerned for information and compliance. Copy of this order be also placed on the record of connected C.R. No. 1327/2001. There shall be no orders as to costs.