THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.336 OF 2014 DATED 25th APRIL, 2014 Between:
M.Narayana Reddy … Petitioner and P.Raja Reddy and another.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.336 OF 2014
O R D E R
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.158 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed TOP No.10 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, under Section 24 CPC to withdraw and transfer the said suit to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, to be tried along with O.S.No.98 of 2012, filed by the defendant in O.S.No.158 of 2012 and others.
By order dated 21.10.2013, the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, allowed the petition and directed withdrawal and transfer of the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved, the defendant in O.S.No.158 of 2012 is before this Court under Section 115 CPC.
O.S.No.158 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, was filed by the respondents in this C.R.P seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule, as set out in the plaint in O.S.No.158 of 2012, reads as under:
“S C H E D U L E Kadapa District, Kadapa Sub-District, Kadapa Municipal Corporation area Chinna Chowk Village Fields, Ist ward, Chinna Chowk D.No.1/320, S.T.Colony, Sy.No.205/2 of an extent of Ac.0.54 cents or 0.218 Hectares.
Bounded by:-
East : Road West : Land of Lpparala Baladeva Rao North : K.C. Canal Bridge, South: Land of Darapuneni Munaiah Along with the right of passage from Sy.No.199 as shown in the plaint plan.”
On the other hand, O.S.No.98 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, was filed by the petitioner herein and five others against the State of Andhra Pradesh and its officers, viz., the District Collector, Kadapa, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, and the Tahsildar, Kadapa, for an injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property therein. The suit schedule, as set out in the plaint in O.S.No.98 of 2012, included various extents of land situated in D.Nos.199 and 203/B1 of Chinna Chowk Village Fields and Panchayat, Kadapa Mandal and District.
The claim of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.98 of 2012 was founded on the alleged assignment of the suit schedule extents of land in their favour by the Government. The cause of action for the suit was the alleged interference by the Government officials with the plaintiffs’ construction activity in these extents of land.
In their suit, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.158 of 2012 contended that the land in Sy.No.199 of Chinna Chowk Village Fields was classified as Vagu Poramboke and they claimed the right of ingress and egress through the said land. They did not assert any manner of right or title in the land in Sy.No.199 of Chinna Chowk Village Fields except the right of passage.
But for the fact that the petitioner herein figured as a party in both suits, there is no commonality of parties in the two suits. The grievance of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.158 of 2012 was against the alleged interference with their assigned lands in D.Nos.199 and 203/B1 by the State and its officers while the claim of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.98 of 2012 was for easementary rights through the land in Sy.No.199 of Chinna Chowk Village Fields. The subject matter of the two suits was therefore distinct, separate and independent.
The settled position of law is that the plaintiff, being the dominus litis, has the right to select his own forum and such right should not be curtailed or interfered with except on very strong grounds. (See INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, MADRAS, V/s. CHEMICAL CONSTRUCTION
[1]
COMPANY ). The power to transfer a suit, however, should be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and only when the ends of justice demand (See UNION OF INDIA V/s. SHIROMANI
[2]
GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE ). In INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK1, the Supreme Court pointed out that where two suits raise common questions of fact and law between parties common to both the suits and these two suits are pending in different Courts, it would be desirable to transfer one of the two suits to the other forum to be tried by the same Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or conflicting decisions.
While exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC, the Court must therefore adopt a pragmatic approach and the paramount consideration should be to ensure the interest of justice.
In the present case, as already pointed out supra, the two suits were essentially different in character and there was no commonality of either the parties or the issues that fell for consideration. The only feature common to the suits was the presence of the petitioner herein as a party to both. Further, the cryptic order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, does not reflect any valid ground for clubbing the two suits. The only reason for doing so is furnished by the learned Principal District Judge in para 5 of the order under revision. This para reads thus:
“5. The subject matter in both the cases are one and the same. I do agree with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as the subject matter in both the cases are same and if they are adjudicated by one Judge it will be easy for parties to project their contentions. In this view of the matter, it is better that both the cases should be tried together by one Judge.”
Perusal of the plaints in the two suits puts it beyond doubt that the reason stated by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, does not hold water. The subject matter in the two cases was not one and the same and conjoined adjudication of the two suits was not necessary either for the convenience of the parties or in the interest of justice. The issues for consideration in the two suits were completely different and did not need to be tried and adjudicated by one Court as opined by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa. Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, was therefore unsustainable on facts and in law, given the settled parameters of Section 24 CPC.
The order under revision is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. CRPMP No.434 of 2014 shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
25th APRIL, 2014 PGS
[1] (1979) 4 SCC 358
[2] (1986) 3 SCC 600 ------------------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J