Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1582 (MP)

Kamlesh Baghel v. Shrikrishan Yadav

2014-12-03

ROHIT ARYA

body2014
ORDER 1. By this revision petition under section 115 CPC., challenge is made to an interlocutory order dated 20.11.2014 passed in MJC No.24/2014 by District Judge, Vidisha. By the aforesaid order, an application filed by the revisionist under section 24 CPC has been rejected. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are to the effect that one Civil Suit No.20A/203 has been filed by the applicant, Kamlesh Baghel against Smt. Sharda Devi Tandon before II Additional District Judge, Vidisha seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property and for declaration that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sharda Devi Tandon in favour of Shrikrishna Yadav be declared null and void. Another suit bearing No.11A/2012 has been filed by Shrikrishna Yadav v. Kamlesh Baghel and others for eviction and arrears of rent, under the Rent Control Act, which is pending before the Court of III Civil Judge, Class­I, Vidisha. 3. The applicant/revisionist advanced submissions before the District Judge that both the suits be clubbed together for analogous hearing to avoid conflicting decisions. The application was dismissed by the impugned order on the premise that the former suit filed by the applicant against Smt.Sharda Devi Tandon was for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property and for declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of Shrikrishna Yadav by Smt.Sharda Devi Tandon be declared null and void whereas the suit filed by Shrikrishna Yadav against Kamlesh Baghel and others was for eviction and arrears of rent under the Rent Control Act. The District Judge observed in the impugned order that both the suits have different consequences, therefore, there is no justification for clubbing both the suits together. That apart, it was also observed that if the suit filed for eviction and arrears of rent filed under the Rent Control Act is transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, either of the parties to the suit shall be deprived of one right of appeal. This shall be highly prejudicial in nature and the submission in that behalf cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the application under section 24 CPC was rejected. 4. This shall be highly prejudicial in nature and the submission in that behalf cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the application under section 24 CPC was rejected. 4. Counsel for the revisionist criticizing the impugned order submitted that the District Judge has committed jurisdictional error while rejecting the application and submits that in similar circumstances, a single Judge of this Court in Sewanlal v.Chetandas and others, 1977 MPWN 340 has found justification for transfer of the suit. Hence, the impugned order be set aside with a direction for clubbing of both the suits. 5. Having perused the order passed in Sewanlal (supra), it is evident that in the context of dealing with an application under section 10 CPC, filed by the revisionist therein, the revision petition was dismissed. However, this Court has not held that a suit pending in a Court of inferior jurisdiction to be clubbed with the suit pending in the higher Court of jurisdiction invariably but it was observed that the proper course for the applicant therein was to file an application under section 24 CPC before the District Judge which was to be decided on its own merits. 6. That apart, the ambit, scope and applicability of section 24 CPC, General power of transfer and withdrawal can be exercised by the High Court or the District to for transfer of suits, appeals and other proceedings, including the execution proceedings only when such suits involve the common questions of facts and law having a substantial bearing on the decision of each of the cases then they should be tried at the same place and by the same Judge. This course is necessary to avoid multiplicity in the trial of the same issues, fair and impartial justice to secure ends of justice and also to avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments. The power of the Court under section 24 CPC is essentially discretionary in nature and is in realm of procedural regulations. 7. Both the suits have different streams; the Civil Cuit No.20A/203 has been filed by the applicant, Kamlesh Baghel against Smt. Sharda Devi Tandon before II Additional District Judge, Vidisha seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property and for declaration that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sharda Devi Tandon in favour of Shrikrishna Yadav be declared null and void. The other Suit No.11A/2012 has been filed by Shrikrishna Yadav Vs. The other Suit No.11A/2012 has been filed by Shrikrishna Yadav Vs. Kamlesh Baghel and others for eviction and arrears of rent, under the Rent Control Act, pending before the Court of III Civil Judge, Class­I, Vidisha. Both the suits are not between the same parties and also the issue involved in both the suits is different. Hence, consequences flowing therefrom are entirely different. That apart, by withdrawing the civil suit No.11A/2012 from the file of III Civil Judge, Class­I, Vidisha to that of Additional District Judge, in fact, one right of appeal of either party shall stands extinguished. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Court below has not committed any error and there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order for exercising the revisional powers under section 115 CPC by this Court. 9. The revision petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Anand V. Bhardwaj for applicant.