SHUDHA DEVELOPERS Vs. K.L. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 24 of CPC, the petitioner is seeking transfer of suit in O.S. No. 334/2009 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore to be tried and disposed of by the City Civil Judge at Bangalore along with O.S. No. 1375/2011. The facts as stated by the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 334/2009 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein against the petitioner M/s. Sudha Developers. The said suit is filed seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.04.2008 said to have been executed by the petitioner herein i.e., M/s. Sudha Developers in favour of the plaintiffs therein/respondent Nos. 1 to 3, whereas O.S. No. 1375/2011 is filed by respondent No. 1 Sri. K.L. Ramesh and the 3rd respondent Sri. K.R. Kamal along with another person by name Sri. C. Venkata Raju, since deceased represented by his L.Rs. seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,06,00,000/- along with interest from Sri. M.N. Dharmavratha. It is thus clear that the two suits are instituted based on different causes of action and the defendant in both the suits are also different inasmuch as in O.S. No. 334/2009 M/s. Sudha Developers, a registered firm of partners is the defendant, whereas in O.S. No. 1375/2011 Sri. M.N. Dharmavratha is the defendant who incidentally happens to be the Managing partner of M/s. Sudha Developers. The relief sought in the two suits are totally different. The suit filed at Mysore is for specific performance and the one filed at Bangalore is for recovery of certain sum of money.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defendant -- petitioner herein has denied the agreement of sale and also the suit transaction of mortgage, based on which recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,06,00,000/- is sought by filing a suit at Bangalore. He therefore, submits that as certain common documents are required to be adduced in evidence and as witnesses examined in all probability will be common, it would be advisable to have both the cases tried at Bangalore as the parties in both the suits are residing at Bangalore. He also points out that the alleged transaction in both the cases have taken place in close proximity of time and in the very nature of things the basis for such transaction is imaginary and false.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on careful perusal of the pleadings in both the suits filed in different Courts, I find that the causes of action for both the suits are different and the nature of relief sought in both the cases are different. The parties to both the suits are not the same in both the cases, inasmuch as in the case pending on the file of Mysore Court, the defendant is a firm, whereas in the case for recovery of money instituted in the Court at Bangalore, the firm is not a party but only individual is a party who happens to be the Managing Director of the firm. Even the plaintiffs are also not same in both the cases. Therefore, I do not find any ground to withdraw the case pending on the Court at Mysore and transfer it to the Court at Bangalore to be clubbed and heard along with the pending case herein at Bangalore. No case is made out for such transfer.