Madras High Court
I. Israel Jayakumar vs P. Rasalraj on 10 June, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(PD)No.1663 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 I. Israel Jayakumar ... Petitioner vs P. Rasalraj ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside theorder passed in Tr.O.P.No.63 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu dated 5.1.2015. For Petitioner : Mr.S. William For respondent : Mr.S. Karthik Ganesh O R D E R
Challenging the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.63 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.917 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur and O.S.No.63 of 2014 on the file of Distirict Court, Chengalpattu has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.917 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur for bare injunction. By judgment and decree dated 12.4.2013, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Tambaram. Subsequently, in the year 2014, the plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.63 of 2014 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu for Specific Performance and for other reliefs. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a petition in Tr.O.P.No.63 of 2014 under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2013 from the file of Sub Court, Tambaram and to transfer the same to the file of Principal District Court, Chengalpattu.
3. In the transfer petition, the plaintiff has stated that in both the suits, the parties are one and the same and the suit property is also one and the same and therefore, in order to avoid conflict of decisions, the appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2013 should be transferred to the file of Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, to be tried along with O.S.No.63 of 2013. The Transfer Petition was opposed by the defendant.
4. The Principal District Court, after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, dismissed the Transfer Petition in Tr.O.P.No.63 of 2014, finding that the issues involved in both the suits are different and therefore, there is no necessity for transferring the first appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2013 to the file of Principal District Court, Chengalpattu.
5. The earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.917 of 2012 was filed for bare injunction. Though the defendant remained absent, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiff, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Tambaram.
6. Two years thereafter, the very same plaintiff preferred another suit in O.S.No.63 of 2014 for Specific Performance and for other reliefs. Since the earlier suit in O.S.No.917 of 2012 was only for bare injunction and also the subsequent suit in O.S.No.63 of 2014 was for Specific Performance, there will not be any common issues to be tried for deciding both the matters.
7. It is only the plaintiff, who chose to file two suits separately and having filed two suits separately, claiming different reliefs in both the suits, he cannot be now heard to say that the issues involved in both the suits are common and therefore, they should be tried together.
8. The first suit in O.S.No.917 of 2012 is only with regard to the possession of the property and the second suit in O.S.No.63 of 2014 is with regard to the Specific Performance of an agreement. That being the case, I am of the considered view that there is no common issue involved in both the suits.
9. The Principal Distirict Judge, Chengalpattu has also observed that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to let in evidence in I.A.Nos.101 of 2013 and 183 of 2013 in A.S.No.37 of 2013. The said applications were filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code and as per Order 41 Rule 28 of Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to prove the additional documents before the appellate court. Giving opportunity to prove the additional documents cannot be equated with the trial of the suit.
10. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, the Principal District Court has rightly dismissed the Transfer Petition in Tr.O.P.No.63 of 2014. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu in Tr.O.P.No.63 of 2014 dated 5.1.2015.
11. In these circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
10-6-2015 sr Index:no website:yes To The Principal District Court, Chengalpattu M.DURAISWAMY,J., sr C.R.P.(PD)No.1663 of 2015 10.6.2015