SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249058

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M. S. Jawalkar, J.
Ganesh Vinayak Mudliyar v. Anilkumar Jagannath Pancholi
W. P. No. 438 of 2024



1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Akola whereby Civil Miscellaneous application No. 336/2023 filed by the petitioners under S.24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for transferring and deciding the suit namely Regular Civil Suit No.283/2022 pending before 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola to the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, where the Small Cause Suit No. 07/2022 filed by the respondent is pending came to be rejected.

4. Plaintiff's case can be summarized as under: - Petitioners have filed a Regular Civil Suit No.283/2022 against the respondent before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the tenant and respondent is the landlord of the suit property. Originally the suit property was owned by one Mr. Satish Shivpal Singhania, however, later the suit property was purchased by respondent. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between petitioners and respondent on 16.07.2018. As per the said agreement, the petitioners became tenant of the suit property owned by respondent. As per the agreement, it was agreed by the petitioners to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month towards rent and the tenancy was agreed to commence from 1st of each English Calendar Month. It was also agreed that Electricity Bill and Municipal Taxes will be paid by the plaintiffs separately. Accordingly, from the date of agreement, the petitioner No.1 started paying the rent amount to the respondent. Petitioners regularly by cheques to the defendant of the agreed amount. So also the electricity bill and municipal taxes has been regularly paid by the petitioners. The original municipal tax paid receipts are regularly handed over to the respondent.

5. On 06.08.2021, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioners claiming an amount of Rs.43,000/- from the petitioners. It is falsely alleged in the said notice that petitioners are in arrears of payment of rent amount since 01.10.2018 till 31.08.2021, an amount of Rs.35,000/- is recoverable from the petitioners. The respondent also claimed interest on the alleged amount of Rs.35,000/-. The petitioners had regularly issued the cheques to the respondent, but the respondent had not presented the cheques and making false claims against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners also issued a reply notice on 16.08.2021. However, the petitioners recalculated the entire dues and issued a cheque to the defendant but the defendant returned the same and threatened the petitioners to forcibly dispose them off the suit property. Thus, petitioners have filed a Regular Civil Suit No.283/2022 before the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola.

6. The respondent, in response to the above, thereafter filed a Small Cause Civil Suit No.07/2022 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola for eviction, possession, arrears of rent and mense profit. The respondent in this Small Cause Civil Suit submitted details of the outstanding and due amount of arrears of rent, permitted increase and interest and stated that the petitioners have a huge amount due and when the respondent demanded the same, the petitioners resorted to sending notices and threatened the respondent of consequences upon which, the respondent filed a Small Cause Civil Suit.

7. The petitioners moved an application under S.24 of the CPC before the learned Principal District Judge, Akola to transfer the Regular Civil Suit No.283/2022 pending before the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola to the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola on the grounds that parties to both the suits were same and that the suit property in question was also same.

8. The respondent filed his reply and opposed the said application on the ground that cause of


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top