S.24 of CPC does
not enable or authorize the District Judge to make
a
further
order
of
consolidation
of
suits
for
hearing and disposal. Consolidation of suits for
hearing and disposal is a matter, in my opinion,
which requires adjudication as to whether and why
the two or more suits should be consolidated for
There cannot be an order
the purpose of hearing.
If an order
of consolidation passed mechanically.
of consolidation is made, the parties to the suit
as
the
are guided in a totally different manner in so far
conduct
of
trial
of
the
civil
suits
is
concerned. The documentary as well as oral evidence
also is required to be tendered in the Court with a
methodology which would subserve the interest of
each of the parties to the suit. Therefore, an
order
of
consolidation
results
into
civil consequences.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Civil Revision Application No. 25 of 2013
Gurdeepsingh son of
Gopalsingh Bagga,
Versus
Gurucharansingh son of
Gopalsingh Bagga,
: 27th Mar., 2014.
CORAM
: A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
Citation;2014(3) MHLJ935 Bom
The applicants are aggrieved by an order
dated 22nd
District
November,
Judge,
2012
Amravati,
passed
in
by
Principal
Misc.
Civil
Application No. 73 of 2012, filed by the present
respondent no.1
plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit
No. 270 of 2011, under Section 24 of Code of Civil
Procedure.
03.
In
learned
support
Adv.
Applicants
Mr.
of
the
Revision
Chandurkar
for
Application,
the
contended that the impugned
Revision
order
of
transfer is illegal, because one is a suit for
1999,
whereas
eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
the
subject
matter
of
other
suit
pertains to partition etc. One suit will lie before
the Court of Civil Judge [Senior Division], while
other
would
lie
before
the
Court
of
Small
the
Causes.
The jurisdictions of the Courts in respect
of the aforesaid two suits are different.
The
parties to these both the suits are different, the
subject-matters
therefore,
the
of
the
learned
suits
also
District
differ
Judge could
and,
not
have made an order of transfer of suits to one
Court. Learned Adv. Mr. Chandurkar also argued that
the order of transfer of a suit, which relates to
Section 33 (2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
made by the District Judge, is misconceived, since
in the fact-situation, the said provision is not
available. Mr. Chandurkar then continued to argue
that the learned Principal District Judge also made
an order to try both the suits together, which, in
effect and in law, amounts to consolidation of the
04.
suits for the purpose of hearing.
Per contra, learned Adv. Mr. Sanyal for the
supported
the
impugned
order,
and
respondents,
argued that the learned Principal District Judge
has made a transfer for the reasons stated in the
order, and at any rate, he found that there should
no conflict of findings in judgment, since issues
about
partition
and
eviction
are
closely
inter-
related and the parties are also related to each
other.
For the reasons in the partition suit, the
determination
of
shares
and
entitlement,
identification etc., will have to be made, which
has an impact on the suit for eviction equally
also.
He,
transfer
therefore,
of
discretion
suit
in
exercised
argued
7
that
exercise
by
the
the
of
order
of
the judicial
Principal District
Judge cannot be faltered. He then argued that the
Principal District Judge went ahead and made an
order of trying the suits together since he found
that it was necessary to do so, in order to avoid
any conflict of findings. He, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the Revision Application.
05.
Perused
the
impugned
order.
Seen
the
reasons for transferring the suit recorded by the
learned Principal District Judge.
Heard learned
counsel for the rival parties.
06.
Though it is true that the two suits are
for different purposes, namely one for partition
and
another
for
eviction,
the
pleadings
in
the
suits, as seen by the learned Principal District
Judge and also considered by me, reveal that the
suit property is same and parties to the suit are
almost related to each other and one property in
the suit is a part and parcel of entire property in
the other suit. That being so, I think, the learned
District Judge rightly found that the property and
parties
being
inter-linked,
there
is
a
the
likelihood of conflicting findings of two different
courts and that is the reason why the order of
transfer of a suit impugned is well justified.
judicial
discretion
exercised
by
the
The
Principal
District Judge is supportable.
07.
The next question is the direction given by
the learned Principal District Jduge in Operative
Part no. 1 of the order to try both these two
suits, namely Regular Civil Suit No. 270 of 2011
and Special Civil Suit No. 40 of 2012 together.
Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code reads thus:-
24. General power of transfer and
withdrawal .- (1) On the application of
any of the parties and after notice to
the parties and after hearing such of
them as desired to be heard, or of its
own motion, without such notice, the
High Court or the District Court may,
at any rate -
(a) transfer any suit, appeal or
other proceeding pending before it for
trial
or
disposal
to
any
Court
subordinate to it and competent to try
or dispose of the same; or
(b)
withdraw any suit, appeal or
other proceeding pending in any Court
subordinate to it; and
(i)
try or dispose of the
same; or
(ii) transfer the same for
trial
or
disposal
to
any
Court
subordinate to it and competent to try
or dispose of the same; or
(iii) re-transfer the same
the same for trial or disposal to the
Court from which it was withdrawn.
(2)
Whether
any
suit
or
proceeding has been transferred or
withdrawn under sub-section (1), the
Court which is thereafter to try or
dispose of such suit or proceeding may,
subject to any special directions in
the case of an order of transfer,
either retry it or proceed from the
point at which it was transferred or
withdraw.
(3)
For
the
purposes
of
this section,-
(a) Courts of Additional and
Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be
subordinate to the District Court;
(b)
proceeding
includes
a
proceeding for the execution of a
decree or order.
(4)
The Court trying any
suit transferred or withdrawn under
this section from a Court of Small
Causes shall, for the purposes of such
suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small
Causes.
(5)
A suit or proceeding
may be transferred under this section
from a Court which has no jurisdiction
to try it.
08. Upon perusal of the above provision, it is
clear that
restricted
the
only
provision
for
of
Section
transferring
the
24
is
suit/suits
from one subordinate court to the other.
It does
not enable or authorize the District Judge to make
a
further
order
of
consolidation
of
suits
for
hearing and disposal. Consolidation of suits for
hearing and disposal is a matter, in my opinion,
which requires adjudication as to whether and why
the two or more suits should be consolidated for
There cannot be an order
the purpose of hearing.
If an order
of consolidation passed mechanically.
of consolidation is made, the parties to the suit
as
the
are guided in a totally different manner in so far
conduct
of
trial
of
the
civil
suits
is
concerned. The documentary as well as oral evidence
also is required to be tendered in the Court with a
methodology which would subserve the interest of
each of the parties to the suit. Therefore, an
order
of
consolidation
consequences.
results
into
civil
Such an order, therefore, will have
to be made by a Court upon hearing the parties and
upon applying the settled principles of law in the
matter
purpose
of
reasons,
of
consolidation
hearing
therefore,
and
I
of
the
disposal.
think
that
suits
For
the
for
the
the
above
Principal
District Judge usurped the power or authority under
Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code in making a
direction to try both the suits together.
The said
to be without jurisdiction. But then the parties
part of the order, therefore, will have to be held
In the result, I make
ought to be given liberty to take such steps are
are advised in that behalf.
the following order:-
[a]
[b]
Civil
O R D E R
Revision
Application
No.
25
of
2013 is partly allowed.
The order of transfer of proceedings of
Regular Civil Suit No. 270 of 2011 is
confirmed.
[c]
The order directing trial of both the
suits together, or along with Special
Civil Suit No. 40 of 2012 shall stand
removed with liberty to the parties to
take such steps as are advised.
09.
In
the
circumstances
the
case,
there
Judge
shall be no order as to costs.
of
No comments:
Post a Comment