Sri Nallalagu Polytechnic Managing ... vs D. Sivakumar on 23 February, 2000
45. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent dealing with the legal questions involved would advance their arguments citing various decisions. On the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner two judgments would be cited, the first one delivered by the Delhi High Court reported in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., Nagpur v. M/s. Mangilal Rungta, Calcutta, A.I.R. 1981 Del. 114 wherein it is emphasised that 'the transferee Court must have both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction'. The second judgment cited: by the learned counsel for the petitioner is one delivered by the Patna High Court reported in Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh v. Surendra Kumar Bhadani and others, wherein it is held that 'the transferor Court must follow Or.21. Rules 5 and 8. But failure to observe the same amounts to a mere irregularity and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to which the decree is transferred for execution. The next area surveyed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of the res judicata, since Section 11 of the C.P.C. was the focal point of the arguments of the learned counsel for, the respondent. The learned counsel would cite two judgments for res judicata and one for constructive res judicata.