Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4269 (MAD)

M. Vijayalakshmi v. K. Murugesan

2014-11-17

M.DURAISWAMY

body2014
JUDGMENT M. DURAISWAMY, J. 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in Transfer O.P. No. 23 of 2012 on the file of District Court, Karur, the revision petitioner, who is the petitioner in the Transfer O.P. has filed the above civil revision petition. 2. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the respondents 1 to 10 have filed suits in O.S. Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9 and 17 of 2012 pending on the file of Principal Sub Court, Karur and also suits in O.S. Nos. 6, 8, 16 and 18 of 2012 pending on the file of Additional Sub Court, Karur and suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2012 pending on the file of District Court, Karur. All the suits were filed by the plaintiff therein for recovery of money on a pronote. 3. The revision petitioner, who is one of the defendants in the said suit, filed Transfer O.P. in Tr. O.P. No. 23 of 2012 on the file of District Court, Karur to withdraw the suits pending on the file of Principal Sub Court Karur and Additional Sub Court, Karur to the file of District Court, Karur, for joint trial along with O.S. No. 4 of 2012 pending on the file of District Court, Karur. 4. The main ground raised by the revision petitioner for transfer and for joint trial of the suit was that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4 of 2012, namely, Murugesan, had manipulated and forged all the promissory notes filed in all the suits. Further, the revision petitioner contended that the said Murugesan, is a partner in all the plaintiffs' firms. The District Court, Karur, withdraw the suits pending on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Karur and transferred the suits for simultaneous trial with the suits pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur. Further, District Court, has not mentioned anything in its order with regard to the suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2012 pending on its file, against which the revision petitioner has filed the above civil revision petition. 5. Further, District Court, has not mentioned anything in its order with regard to the suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2012 pending on its file, against which the revision petitioner has filed the above civil revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner has sought for a transfer of all the suits pending on the file of Principal Sub Court, Karur and Additional Sub Court, Karur to the file of District Court, Karur, to be tried along with O.S. No. 4 of 2012, on the file of District Court, Karur, the District Court should have transferred all the suits to be tried along with the suit pending on its file. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Court had committed an error in not taking into consideration, the suit pending on its file for joint trial. 6. Mr. N. Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the District Court ought not have allowed the transfer petition for the reason that the revision petitioner had filed one transfer petition in respect of 9 suits pending on the file of Principal Sub Court and Additional Sub Court. 7. On a reading of the order passed by the District Court, it is clear that the District Court did not agree with the case of the revision petitioner for transferring the suits for joint trial. In spite of not agreeing with the case put forth by the revision petitioner, the District Judge has erroneously allowed the petition and ordered for simultaneous trial in respect of the suits pending on the file of Principal Sub Court and Additional Sub Court. 8. It is true that the District Judge, has not mentioned anything in its order with regard to the suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2012 pending on its file. In paragraph 7 of this order, the District Court has observed as follows:- "The perusal would show that all the suit transactions had taken place in different dates with different parties. When parties are not one and the same and the cause of action for all the suits have arisen in different dates, ordering of joint trial would not serve fruit results. Further, the evidence to be recorded in one suit would not affect the other suits." 9. When parties are not one and the same and the cause of action for all the suits have arisen in different dates, ordering of joint trial would not serve fruit results. Further, the evidence to be recorded in one suit would not affect the other suits." 9. Inspite of observing as mentioned above, the District Court ordered transfer all the suits pending on the file of Additional Sub Court to the file of Principal Sub Court, though not for joint trial, but for simultaneous trial. Having observed that the transaction between the parties took place in different dates with different parties and when the parties are not one and the same and the cause of action are also different, the District Court should not have ordered for simultaneous trial. The finding given by the District Court is contrary to the result of the petition. It is a clear non application of mind on the part of the District Judge, which cannot be allowed to stand. That apart, the District Judge has not taken into consideration the suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2012 pending on its file inspite of the petitioner sought for the prayer for joint trial along with the said suit. The District Court has not uttered a single word with regard to the suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2012. 10. Since the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India, this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate Courts, and in view of the findings given by the District Court, which are contrary to the ultimate result of the Transfer O.P., I am inclined to set aside the entire order and remand the matter back to the District Court for fresh disposal. Accordingly, the fair and final order passed in Tr. O.P. No. 23 of 2012 on the file of District Court, Karur is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Court for fresh disposal, on merits and in accordance with law. The District Court, Karur, shall decide the Transfer O.P. on merits and in accordance with law, taking into consideration all aspects including the issue with regard to the maintainability of the single transfer O.P. in respect of 9 suits. 11. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. The District Court, Karur, shall decide the Transfer O.P. on merits and in accordance with law, taking into consideration all aspects including the issue with regard to the maintainability of the single transfer O.P. in respect of 9 suits. 11. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that all the suits are taken up for trial and posted for cross-examination of PW1. Since, the order passed in Tr. O.P. No. 23 of 2012 is set aside, the Trial Courts may proceed with the Trial and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.