Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

K.Harilal, J.

What are the circumstances which are requisite for transferring a suit from one court to another court wherein another suit is pending, so as to try both cases jointly? This is the question that emerges for our decision in this appeal.

2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order in Tr.P(C) No.223 of 2012 of this Court passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. The appellants are plaintiffs in O.S.No.242 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal, a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the 1st respondent herein, who is the defendant in the original suit, from entering into the plaint schedule Trust properties and causing any obstruction with running of the school which is functioning in the Trust property. The 1st appellant/ 1st plaintiff is a Trust, constituted and registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. 2nd appellant/ 2nd plaintiff  is the Chairman and 3rd appellant is the Secretary of the 1st appellant Trust and Manager of the school. The 1st respondent/ defendant is the younger brother of the 3rd appellant herein. According to plaint averments, the 1st respondent was working in the school as temporary Office Assistant on contract basis and he was terminated on 04.05.2011 on the allegation of misappropriation of `2.5 lakhs. Consequently, he began to create problems in the school and obstructed the smooth running of the school, which culminated in filing of a suit for injunction. Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.242 of 2011 of the Munsiff Court, Attingal was marked as Annexure A in the Tr.P.C. The 1st respondent herein resisted the said suit contending that he is not a temporary Assistant in the school and that he is a member of the Trust which runs the school.

4. The contention raised in the transfer petition is that in both Annexure A suit and Annexure B petition, the disputed questions are common vis-`-vis, bonafides of the contentions of the 1st respondent regarding the constitution, composition and management of the first appellant Trust. If these cases are tried by two different courts, the possibility of rendering, conflicting Judgments cannot be ruled out and the same will cause considerable hardships, confusions and injuries to the parties. Hence prayed for, to withdraw O.S.No.242 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal and to transfer the same to the District Court, Kollam, enabling to be tried jointly along with O.P.No.433 of 2011 before the District Court, Kollam.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that the cause of actions of the suit and original petition are different. Both the cases are totally different and have no relation to one another. The evidence to be tendered in both the cases are different and have no bearing with one another. The suit is dealt with misappropriation of money, but the other original petition is dealt with removal of existing  Trustees. Therefore, even if the case pending before the Munsiff Court, Attingal is transferred to the District Kollam wherein O.P.No.433 of 2011 is pending, no joint-trial can be allowed. Therefore the question of transfer of O.S.No.242 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal to the District Court, Kollam is impermissible under law.

14. In the case on hand, if the 1st respondent is a member of the Trust, he cannot ordinarily be interdicted from entering into the Trust schedule property and the school which is being run by the 1st appellant Trust, in which he is also a member. O.P.No.433 of 2011 is filed by the 1st respondent also as 2nd petitioner, claiming that he is a member of the Trust and sought for removal of appellants as office bearers and replacement of these posts from other members including him. A common question of fact that emerges from both cases is whether the 1st respondent is a member of the Trust? Likewise in O.S.No.242 of 2011 the allegation is that the 1st respondent has misappropriated an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the fund of the Trust; whereas in O.P.No.433 of 2011 also, one of the allegations is misappropriation of Trust fund and consequently sought for rendition of accounts. Here also arises another common question  of fact whether there is any misappropriation of Trust fund? The evidence to be let in both cases appears to be common. All parties in O.S.No.242 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal are parties in O.P.No.433 of 2011 on the file of the District Court also. The right to relief in both cases arises out of the constitution, composition and management of the Trust. The transfer of O.S.No.242 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal to the District Court, Kollam wherein O.P.No.433 of 2011 is pending will not cause any kind of prejudice to the respondents and it may be more convenient for respondents. Therefore we find that in the above said circumstance joint-trial of both cases in the same court will be more convenient and effective for the proper adjudication of the question in controversy involved in both cases. The possibility of conflicting findings regarding these common question of facts also can be avoided.