Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2830 (MAD)

D. Selvam v. K. Shanmugham

2012-07-05

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in Transfer O.P.Nos.65 & 66 of 2011, these civil revision petitions are filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the entertaining stage itself. 3. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these revisions, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) The revision petitioner herein/tenant wanted the RCA.Nos.1242 and 1317 of 2005 pending on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai to be transferred to the file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, wherein RCA.Nos.437 of 2007 and 149 of 2008 are pending. (ii) The tenant, therefore took steps to get transferred the RCAs, namely, RCA.Nos.1242 and 1317 of 2005 pending on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes to the file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, by filing Transfer O.P.Nos.65 and 66 of 2011, respectively, before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. (iii) After hearing both sides, the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, dismissed those Transfer O.Ps. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the tenant filed these two revisions on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that all the four RCAs are on different footings and there was no necessity at all for one and the same Judge to deal with both the matters. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? 7. A mere poring over and perusal of the orders passed by the lower Court and the entire records would reveal that the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, opined that no prejudice would be caused if all the matters are not taken together. 8. The advocates are one and the same in all the matters. Normally, when matters are relating to one and the same premises and advocates are also one and the same, one of the parties might be willing to get both the matters listed before one and the same Judge and get them disposed of. 8. The advocates are one and the same in all the matters. Normally, when matters are relating to one and the same premises and advocates are also one and the same, one of the parties might be willing to get both the matters listed before one and the same Judge and get them disposed of. Unless there is any ill-will or mala fide intention on the part of the tenant in seeking such transfer from VIII Court of Small Causes to VII Court of Small Causes, the Court would be reluctant not to accept such prayer. However, the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, went to the extent of holding that no prejudice would be caused if separately those matters are heard, which in my opinion cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above, the orders dated 21.2.2012 passed in Transfer O.P.Nos.65 and 66 of 20011 are set aside and the RCA.No.1242 of 2005 and RCA.No.1317 of 2005 pending on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, are ordered to be transferred to the file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, to be dealt along with RCA.Nos.149 of 2008 and 437 of 2007. On such transfer, the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is directed to dispose of all those matters within two months thereafter. 10. The civil revision petitions are ordered accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.