IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR C.R.P.No.440/2018 (M) BETWEEN:
1. MR. M VENKATESH S/O LATE A MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHANKAR GROUP OF WINES R/AT NO.328, OPP. TO SSM SCHOOL 3RD BLOCK, T.R.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 085 2. MR.L.NAGARAJA GOWDA S/O LAKKANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.301, 4TH MAIN VIDYAPEETA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 085.
(BY SRI. H. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) AND:
MRS. A R RUKMINI W/O H.N.GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.627, 11TH B CROSS 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU-560 085 ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADV. FOR SRI.P. B. AJITH, ADV.) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 17.07.2018 PASSED IN MISC.NO.827/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though this petition is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This Civil Petition has been directed against the order dated 17th day of July, 2018 in Misc No.827/2017 on the file of the Court of the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru wherein the petitioners have filed petition under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of OS No.3373/2014 pending on the file of CCH -45 to CCH -23 wherein OS No.2476/2014 is pending.
3. The properties involved in both the cases are one and the same. The plaintiff in both the suit is same but defendant is different.
4. It is stated in the petition that the defendant – respondent has filed a suit bearing OS No.2476/2014 before the City Civil Judge, (CCH -23) Bengaluru, a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner No.1. The case in OS No.3373/2014 is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property depicted therein. The respondent has filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner in O.S. No.2476/2014, but the said case is pending for adjudication between the parties, but the respondent in the aforesaid suit has also claimed arrears of rent from the petitioner No.1. However, the property involved in O.S. No.2476/2014 is the shop premises on the ground floor in the building constructed on the property bearing No.742, 4th phase, Vishwabharati Housing complex Layout, Girinagar, Bengaluru measuring 20 x 30 feet. It is relevant to state that the respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction against petitioner No.2 restraining him from interfering in his possession in O.S. No.3373/2014 pending on the file of CCH 45. The property involved in the said suit is property bearing No.742, situated in Vishwbharati Housing complex layout, 4th phase, Girinagar, Bengaluru measuring 60’ x 40’ consisting of RCC building constructed thereon measuring 2000 sq. feet. The property involved in OS 2476/2014 is a portion of the property involved in OS No.3373/2014 which is pending on the file of the CCH 45 whereas O.S. No.2476/2014 is pending on the file of the CCH No.23. However, the Court below dismissed the said petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of the said suit as stated.
5. There is no dispute with regard to property. In both the suit the suit properties are same, plaintiffs are the same but defendants are different. If the both cases are heard in one Court it is easy to appreciate the evidence as well as the documents produced by the parties. Therefore, it is relevant whether the court below has considered the scope and object of Section 24 of CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1996 Kerala 113 whereas in this judgment Section 24 of CPC has been dealt with relating to the decision of the case and also joint trial. However, in this case, the petition was came to be rejected but the validity and rejecting on the basis that both the suits and subject matters was the same and also to held that apart from the nature of suit being common, facts being inter twined and overlapping, the possibility of confict of decision will occur if the suit were tried separately and therefore, transfer of the case for joint trial is necessary. Hence the order of the Court below is set aside.It is relevant to state that however, a transfer of a suit cannot be made in a light-hearted fashion as cautioned by Court. "Where there are suits which raise certain common questions of facts and law, having a substantial bearing on the decision of each of the cases; it is obviously desirable, that they should be tried at the same place and by the same Judge." The involvement of common question of law and facts Is not the only ground authorising the transfer of suits under Section 24. It is only illustrative and not exhaustive. This is paramountly a matter involving the satisfaction of the Court which exercises the power. What the above decision magnifies is that when certain common questions of facts having a substantial bearing on the decision of both the cases they should be tried together. If the facts of the suits sought to be tried together are intertwined with cause of action in each suits the transfer of suit may not be refused provided the parties and subject-matter of the suits are one and the same. When the Court feels that facts intertwined with the different causes of action are separated and suits tried independently would result in conflicting decisions, it can allow the transfer and joint trial. But here in both the suits – OS No.3373/2014 and 2476/2014 the subject matter is the same, the plaintiff is same but defendants are different.
6. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent in this petition has taken me through the plaint in OS No.2476/2014 and also the written statement filed by the plaintiff and also the plaint in O.S. No.3373/2014 and other details have been produced for perusal of this Court. However, in both the suits, the cases are set down for cross examination and moreover it is a case of the year 2014. Therefore, keeping in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties, it needs to be analysed that the parties in both the suits are one and same, the subject is also same in both the suits. Therefore, interference is required by this Court. The reasons given by the Court below in rejecting the Misc petition is not justified. Therefore, the impugned order passed in Misc petition No.827/2017 dated 17.7.2018 by the Prl. City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore requires to be setaside. Accordingly, it is set aside. Consequently, the Misc petition filed by the petitioners are allowed. Therefore, it is ordered to transfer O.S. No.3373/14 which is pending on the file of the CCH 45 to the Court CCH 23 wherein OS No.2476/2014 is pending. Since both the cases of the year 2014, the court below is directed to expedite the matters and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit for a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, by giving an opportunity to both the parties and proceed with the case from the stage where it is pending. The first petitioner is said to be tenant in OS. No.2476/2014. The arrears of rent payable shall be deposited before the aforesaid Court in the month of August 2019. Consequently, I.A, 1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nm