Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1036 (MAD)

S. Arumugam v. P. Poovaraghavan

2010-03-15

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur and to transfer the same to the Subordinate Court, Palani, to be tried along with the suit, in O.S.No.89 of 2009. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner has raised common defence in both the suits. He had also submitted that the suit, in O.S.No.89 of 2009, has been filed by one Shakthi, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani. He had instigated his son-in-law, one P.Poorvaraghavan, to file a suit against the petitioner, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur. 3. The suits had been filed by the plaintiffs therein, alleging that the defendants in the said suits, who is the petitioner herein, had borrowed certain sums of money, based on a promissory note and that the petitioner had not repaid the amounts, as agreed between the parties. He had also submitted that both the suits had been filed by falsification of the relevant documents. 4. The learned counsel had also submitted that there can be conflicting decisions in the said suits, if both the suits are tried at different places. Since, the witnesses, to be examined in both the suits, in favour of the petitioner, are the same and similar evidence have to be let in, it would be convenient for the petitioner, if the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur, is transferred to the Subordinate Court, Palani, to be tried along with O.S.No.89 of 2009. Since, both the suits involve common issues, it would be appropriate for this Court to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. 5. He had also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in SBI V. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd and another ( 2007(1) SCC 97 ), to show that, when common issues arise for adjudication in different suits they can be directed to be heard in one of the Courts, by way of a joint trial. He had also relied on a decision of this Court, reported in P.V.Arumugam V. Gurusamy and others ( 2008(2) CTC 54 ), in support of his contention. 6. He had also relied on a decision of this Court, reported in P.V.Arumugam V. Gurusamy and others ( 2008(2) CTC 54 ), in support of his contention. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the suit, in O.S.No.89 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani. The cause of action for the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur, is different and that the plaintiff, as well as the plaintiffs witnesses are living at Mettur. The issues arising for adjudication in both the suits are different, as they arise out of two different promissory notes. The common defence taken by the petitioner in such suits cannot be a ground for his request, for the transfer of the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur, to be transferred and tried along with the suit, in O.S.No.89 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani. Since, the promissory note in question, in the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, had been executed by the petitioner, within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court at Mettur, the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2009, has been filed before the Subordinate Court, Mettur. Further, the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, is ready for trial and the request of the petitioner for transferring the suit to the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani, to be tried along with O.S.No.89 of 2009, is only to protract the proceedings in the suits. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. The reasons adduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the transfer of the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, to be tried along with O.S.No.89 of 2009, before the Subordinate Court, Palani, is not acceptable. 8. The main reason for the request to transfer the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, is that common defence has been raised by the petitioner in both the suits. 8. The main reason for the request to transfer the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, is that common defence has been raised by the petitioner in both the suits. The claim that both the suits had been filed based on the falsification of documents and that the plaintiffs in the said suits had colluded to file the suits against the petitioner has not been substantiated, at this stage. Since, both the suits arise out of different causes of action and the plaintiffs witnesses are also different, this Court finds that there is no necessity to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner to transfer the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur, to the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani, to be tried along with O.S.No.89 of 2009, cannot be countenanced. 9. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to direct the transfer of the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur, to the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani, to be tried along with suit, in O.S.No.89 of 2009. Accordingly, the transfer petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.