Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 839 (KAR)

SAROJA BHATIJA v. SANJAY B. MAKHIJA

2006-10-18

K.L.MANJUNATH

body2006
ORDER Petitioner herein has filed three suits. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 331 of 1996 and 7251 of 1995 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Subsequently, respondent Pushpa Makhija has also filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 1936 of 2003. O.S. No. 331 of 1996 was pending before CCH-6, O.S. No. 7251 of 1995 was pending before CCH-14 and the suit filed by the respondent Pushpa Makhija was pending before CCH-32. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1936 of 2003 and defendants in O.S. Nos. 331 of 1996 and 7251 of 1995 filed three miscellaneous petitions under Section 24 of the CPC before the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Misc. Nos. 510, 511 and 512 of 2004 requesting the Court to transfer all the suits to one Court and to try the same along with O.S. No. 7251 of 1995. Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 24 of CPC before the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Misc. Nos. 510, 511 and 512 of 2004 requesting the Court to transfer all the suits to one Court and to try the same along with O.S. No. 7251 of 1995. Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC was opposed by the petitioner herein. Still the Court has allowed the application on 9-8-2004 to withdraw O.S. No. 331 of 1996 and O.S. No. 1936 of 2003 and try along with O.S. No. 7251 of 1995. The order passed in the above three miscellaneous petitions is called in question in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that writ petition is not maintainable as the order passed by the Principal City Civil' Judge under Section 24 of the CPC is an independent proceedings and it amounts to final order. Therefore, writ petition does not lie before this Court. 4. According to Mr. Lakshminarayana, Counsel for the petitioner, order passed by the Principal City Civil Judge in withdrawing two suits and post along With another suit is nothing but an administrative order. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an independent proceedings and such an order has to be considered as an interlocutory order and that the writ would lie against the same. Lakshminarayana, Counsel for the petitioner, order passed by the Principal City Civil Judge in withdrawing two suits and post along With another suit is nothing but an administrative order. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an independent proceedings and such an order has to be considered as an interlocutory order and that the writ would lie against the same. He alternatively contends that if the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable and he may be permitted to convert this writ petition into civil revision petition. 5. Having heard the Counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by this Court is that whether an order passed under Section 24 of the CPC is an independent proceedings and whether writ would lie against such an order. 6. Section 24 of CPC provides for general power of transfer and withdrawal of a case either by the High Court or by the District Court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same or to withdraw any suit or appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same or' transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same or re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. Therefore, it is clear that it is a power to be exercised either by the High Court or by the District Court to transfer the suit or appeal from one Court to any other subordinate Court as envisaged under Section 24 of the CPC. Section 24 of the CPC cannot be pressed into service by anyone of the parties to a suit or appeal before the same Court. It has to be exercised either by the High Court or by the District Court. Even if it is filed before the District Court, Court has got powers to transfer the case which is pending before it to any other Court which is competent to try and dispose of the same and similarly right is also given to the District Court to deal with the cases which are pending before the Courts subordinate to it. Even if it is filed before the District Court, Court has got powers to transfer the case which is pending before it to any other Court which is competent to try and dispose of the same and similarly right is also given to the District Court to deal with the cases which are pending before the Courts subordinate to it. In the instant case, three suits are pending before the Additional City Civil Judge. Additional City Civil Judge cannot be considered as a Subordinate Court to the Principal City Civil Judge. Still the Principal City Civil Judge has got power to withdraw and transfer to any other Competent Court. If such a power is exercised by the District Court, it cannot be considered as an order passed on ail interlocutory application. It is an independent power given to a particular Court though such suit or appeal pending before it and such an application will not be filed in the suit or appeal before the same Court. Even if such suit or appeal is pending before the District Court, petition under Section 24 of the CPC would be tried separately as an independent proceedings. If a decision is rendered by a Court independently, in an independent proceedings and if an order is passed under Section 24 of the CPC, such an order is not an appealable order to the High Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, Section 115 of the CPC would come to the aid of the aggrieved persons or a party. If an order is passed under Section 24 of the CPC since it cannot be considered as an order passed on an interlocutory application in a pending matter only a revision would lie under Section 115 of the CPC and net a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner cannot challenge the order passed under Section ·24 of the CPC by the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that petitioner can only invoke Section 115 of the CPC. 7. In the result, these three writ petitions are not maintainable. In view of the request of the petitioner's Counsel, he is permitted to convert these writ petitions into civil revision petitions within two weeks from today. Granting such liberty, these petitions are closed.