Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 900 (MAD)

R. Balakumar v. Bohemian Destinations Pvt. Ltd.

2021-03-15

N.KIRUBAKARAN, P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

body2021
JUDGMENT : P.D. Audikesavalu, J. (Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 29.10.2018 in Application No. 4124 of 2017 in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 passed by this Court.) (through video conference) 1. The intra-court appeal arises out of the order dated 29.10.2018 in Appln. No. 4124 of 2017 in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 passed by the Learned Judge on the Original Side of this Court directing joint trial of the said suit in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 along with C.S. No. 54 of 2015, which is pending in the same Court. 2. The Respondent is the owner of the property situate at Old No. 38, New No. 64, Rukmani Street, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600090 and had entered a lease agreement dated 30.04.2008 with the Appellant in respect of the building premises in the said property for a period of 10 years commencing from 01.07.2008. As certain disputes arose between the parties in respect of the said lease agreement, the Respondent instituted suit in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 against the Appellant seeking the following reliefs:- (i) To direct the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 32,00,000/- as compensation and damages and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as future damages and compensation to the Respondent. (ii) To direct the Appellant to stick with the terms and conditions in the lease agreement dated 30.04.2008. (iii) To direct the Appellant to sign all the papers concerning the approval of the building for commercial purpose in order to submit them to the Corporation of Chennai for obtaining commercial approval for the building. (iv) To declare that the Appellant is not entitled to collect rents for the period from July 2008 in respect of the building premises. (v) To declare that the lease agreement dated 30.04.2008 is binding on the Appellant. (vi) To grant permanent injunction restraining the Appellant, his men, servants, agents and all persons claiming under him from claiming monthly rent from the Respondent in respect of the building premises. (vii) To direct the Appellant to pay cost of the entire proceedings. The Appellant had filed Written Statement defending the said suit. (vi) To grant permanent injunction restraining the Appellant, his men, servants, agents and all persons claiming under him from claiming monthly rent from the Respondent in respect of the building premises. (vii) To direct the Appellant to pay cost of the entire proceedings. The Appellant had filed Written Statement defending the said suit. Subsequently, the Appellant filed another suit in C.S. No. 54 of 2015 against the Respondent in respect of the same property for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,13,69,770/- towards arrears of rent for the said premises. The Respondent had filed Written Statement defending the said suit. It also requires to be stated here that reference has been made by both the parties in their pleadings in C.S. No. 54 of 2015 to the property involved in C.S. No. 157 of 2011. 3. The Respondent made an application in Appln. No. 4124 of 2017 in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 for joint trial of that suit along with C.S. No. 54 of 2015. Though it was opposed by the Appellant, the Learned Judge on the Original Side of this Court by order dated 29.10.2018, after referring to the rival contentions of the parties, passed a detailed order for joint trial of both suits, which is assailed in this Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that when the nature of relief sought in both the suits are different, no order for joint trial of both suits ought to have been passed in the matter. He further brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the amendments made to Section 4(2) of the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892, by Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2018, which has come into force with effect from 01.02.2019 enhancing the upper limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the suit in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 now falls within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai and would have to be transferred to that Court and as such, joint trial of both the suit in the Original Side of this Court cannot take place. 1,00,00,000/-, the suit in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 now falls within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai and would have to be transferred to that Court and as such, joint trial of both the suit in the Original Side of this Court cannot take place. He has cited the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in V.Ramamirtham -vs- Rama Film Service [ AIR 1951 Mad 93 (FB)], where it has been held that on enhancement of the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction, the pending suits in the Original Side of this Court could be transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent supporting the impugned order, relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India -vs- Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. [ (2007) 1 SCC 97 ] to point out that when two suits relating to the same property are pending before the same Court, it would be appropriate that joint trial takes place by recording common evidence in the matter. 6. We have heard Mr. R.Parthasarathy, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.L. Sudarsanam, Learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 7. Having regard to the rival submissions made, it is evident that both the suits relate to transactions arising between the same parties in respect of the same property and the proper recourse would be to conduct joint trial by recording common evidence so as to arrive at the truth regarding the rival claims of the parties. The mere circumstance that the reliefs claimed in those suits are different cannot cause any prejudice by any joint trial of those suits. On the other hand, if separate trial for both suits are held, it would not be possible to expect the parties to produce the same documents in proof of their claims in their respective cases. Further, recording separate oral evidence of the witnesses in the two suits does not serve any useful purpose. That apart, the Learned Judge rightly held in the impugned order that the commonality of the issues is apparent and revolves around the interpretation of the lease agreement and if conflicting decisions are made by separate trials, execution of decrees would become difficult. That apart, the Learned Judge rightly held in the impugned order that the commonality of the issues is apparent and revolves around the interpretation of the lease agreement and if conflicting decisions are made by separate trials, execution of decrees would become difficult. This Court is fortified in taking this view by the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India -vs- Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. [ (2007) 1 SCC 97 ], where it has been observed as follows:- “10. A joint trial can be ordered by the court if it appears to it that some common question of law or fact arises in both proceedings or that the right to relief claimed in them are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order for joint trial. Where the plaintiff in one action is the same person as the defendant in another action, if one action can be ordered to stand as a counterclaim in the consolidated action, a joint trial can be ordered. An order for joint trial is considered to be useful in that, it will save the expenses of two attendances by the counsel and witnesses and the trial Judge will be enabled to try the two actions at the same time and take common evidence in respect of both the claims.... 11. A joint trial is ordered when a court finds that the ordering of such a trial, would avoid separate overlapping evidence being taken in the two causes put in suit and it will be more convenient to try them together in the interests of the parties and in the interests of an effective trial of the causes. This power inheres in the court as an inherent power....” In such circumstances, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court. 8. This power inheres in the court as an inherent power....” In such circumstances, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court. 8. Insofar as the effect of the enhancement of the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai by the Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2018, which has come into force with effect from 01.02.2019 is concerned, it has been made clear by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in V.Ramamirtham -vs- Rama Film Service [ AIR 1951 Mad 93 (FB)] that despite enhancement of the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai, the jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court remains concurrent and the Original Side of this Court would not become incompetent to try such suits. As joint trial of both suits is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this Court in the exercise of auxiliary powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, further directs that the suit in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 pending on the file of the Original Side of this Court shall not be transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and shall be retained to be tried along with C.S. No. 54 of 2015 in the Original Side of this Court. The impugned order dated 29.10.2018 in Appln. No. 4124 of 2017 in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 is affirmed and all concerned shall carry out the directions therein. 9. The suits in C.S. No. 157 of 2011 and C.S. No. 54 of 2015 shall be listed before the Additional Master - I for recording evidence on 08.04.2021. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.