The court ruled on procedural propriety regarding jurisdictional transfer of civil suits to prevent unnecessary delays.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 378 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= STERLING ENTERPRISE LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus SANJAY V. VADHERA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MEGHA JANI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR. M.A.PARIKH for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date : 12/07/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By filing instant Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure , (“the Code” for short), the Appellant seeks to 2/8 JUDGMENT challenge the order dated 2.8.2005 recorded below application Exh.106 in Regular Civil Suit No. 284 of 2002 by the learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Navrangpura, by which the application filed by the Respondent under Order 7 Rule 10(A) of the Code has been granted and thereby Regular Civil Suit No. 284 of 2002 has been returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper Court.

2. The Appellant (the Plaintiff for short) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 284 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge (JD) at Ahmedabad for declaration and permanent injunction against the Respondent (“defendant” for short). It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Plaintiff for purchase of Bungalow No. 4 in the scheme of Garden City, having built up area of 310 sq. yards for the consideration of Rs.15,48,000/-. The Defendant had paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and had given cheques for the remaining amount. The possession of the property was handed over to the Defendant by the Plaintiff. However, thereafter all the cheques were returned dishonoured for insufficient balance in the account, and hence the Suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

3. The Defendant appeared and contested the Suit by filing written statement, inter alia, denying all the averments made in the Plaint and prayed 3/8 JUDGMENT for dismissal of the Suit.

4. The learned Judge has framed the issues on 10.2.2003 and thereafter evidence was recorded. The Plaintiff submitted purshis closing its evidence on 15.7.2003 at exh. 103. Thereafter the Defendant also submitted his purshis for closing evidence at exh. 105 on 16.7.2005. The Defendant thereafter gave an application at exh.

106 for framing preliminary issue to the effect that since the value of the Suit property is Rs.16,46,000/-, the Court of Civil Judge (JD) does not have pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 2.8.2005 has granted application and returned the Plaint to the Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10(A) of the Code for presentation to the proper Court, which has given rise to the present Appeal from Order at the instance of the original Plaintiff.

5. Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate of the Plaintiff, submitted that the Plaintiff will accept the