Animadverting upon the order dated dated 7.1.2008 passed in Transfr O.P.No.1 of 2007 by the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, this revision petition is filed.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, as stood exposited from the plaint, succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly be set out thus:
The revision petitioner/Vinayagam is the defendant in O.S.No.98 of 2004, which was filed by the first respondent herein before the Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai. The revision petitioner filed the written statement taking up the defence that there was no contractual relationship between the said Palani and Vinayagam, but there was contractual relationship between Krishnan-the plaintiff in O.S.No.546 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. It is a fact to be noted that in O.S.No.546 of 2005 one Sekar is the defendant. In order to buttress and fortify the defence effectively, the said Vinayagam-the defendant in O.S.No.98 of 2004, filed Tr.O.P.No.1 of 2007 before the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, for clubbing both the cases for being tried. However, the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in a cryptic order dismissed it as under:-
"cause of action in both cases are not one and the same. The suits mentioned in the petition is having different monetory jurisdiction. There is no merit to allow this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed."
Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order, this revision petition has been focussed on various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the defence of the revision petitioner in O.S.No.98 of 2004 is such that the plaintiff-Krishnan in O.S.No.546 of 2005 should also be a party in O.S.No.98 of 2004 or the said suit O.S.No.546 of 2005 should be tried along with the suit O.S.No.98 of 2004 and then only full truth can be placed before the Court for effective and firm decision; one of the attesting witnesses the in pro-notes in both the suits, is one and the same and the plaintiff Palani is one of the attesting witnesses in the pro-note in O.S.No.546 of 2005. Accordingly, he prays for clubbing both the cases for being tried together.
4. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent Palani would vehemently oppose the move for transfer on the ground that the defendant in O.S.No.546 of 2005 is having nothing to do with the defendant-Vinayagam, who is the revision petitioner herein and both the suits are different. Accordingly, he prays for dismissing of the revision petition.
5. In this factual matrix what I could understand is that in the defence of Vinayagam, there is no reference to Sekar-the defendant in O.S.NO.546 of 2005; the transaction between the said Krishnan and Sekar in O.S.No.546 of 2005 is nothing to do with the transaction relating to O.S.No.98 of 2004, even as per the defendant-Vinayagam. Had the defence of Vinayagam been that Sekar and Vinayagam signed in the pro-note relating to one and the same transaction between Krishnan and Vinayagam, the matter would be entirely different and at once this Court would have no hesitation to order for clubbing both the cases for being tried together, in the interest of justice. But even as per the revision petitioner-Vinayagam, the transaction between Krishnan and Sekar had nothing to do with the transaction between Krishnan and Vinayagam. However, in view of the plaintiff in O.S.No.98 of 2004 having attested the pro-note in O.S.No.546 of 2005, Vinayagam wants to highlight that Palani is nothing but the mouthpiece of Krishnan. Ofcourse I do understand the endeavour of Vinayagam in trying to fence his defence. Instead of clubbing both the cases together, in view of the fact that there was no connection between Vinayagam and Sekar, I would like to direct the trial Court to give liberty to the defendant Vinayagam in O.S.No.98 of 2004 to summon Krishnan as a Court witness and permit Vinayagam to cross-examine Krishnan and also permit Vinayagam to send for the pro-note in O.S.No.546 of 2005 and for other records; whereupon after taking certified copies of the originals, the same be sent back to the Court concerned and accordingly, the matter shall be processed.
G.RAJASURIA,J
6. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein prays for fixing a time limit for early disposal of the matter
7. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8.The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.