J.S. AMPANGIRAMA REDDY Vs. NANJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

(2.) The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that in which Court the suit is filed, the said Court is not having jurisdiction to try the suit and the same has to be transferred to the Senior Civil Judge which is having jurisdiction. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the application and also relying upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi reported in ILR (2005) II DELHI 571 IN THE CASE OF AVIAT CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs MAGNA LABORATORIES (GUJARAT) PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER and particularly taking into note of the powers exercised under Sec. 24(5) of CPC, comes to the conclusion that this petition is filed under Sec. 24 of CPC and in the Delhi case, application is not filed for invoking Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and when the application is pending for consideration i.e., filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC by the plaintiff itself, the same has to be considered and the Trial Court cannot invoke Sec. 24 of CPC and the judgment of Delhi High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and hence, rejected the same.

(3.) Now the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners vehemently contend that the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel also vehemently contend that the petitioners are also not opposing the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and only contention of the petitioners that already evidence has been completed and also the defendant has addressed his argument and when the case is set down for the arguments of the plaintiff's side, at that juncture, an application is filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and even the Court can invoke Sec. 24 of CPC when there is no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and transfer the case and the said fact has not been considered by the Trial Court hence, the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and it requires interference. The pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 10 is not come in the way of taking the decision under Sec. 24 of CPC to transfer the said case. The counsel also relied upon paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Delhi High Court wherein observed that in some cases, evidence has been recorded, it will be travesty of justice if the proceedings have to commence de novo right from the stage of filing a written statement as the plaint would be returned, to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction, there is nothing in the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 which on its plain reading or by necessary implication be construed as a bar to maintainability of a petition under Sec. 24 of the Code. These circumstances examined in light of the predicated principles of law adjunct with the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the suits are permitted to be transferred by itself would be sufficient ground for ordering the transfer of the suits if other ingredients of Sec. 24 are satisfied and such an order is demanded in the interest of justice. The counsel would submits that the Trial Court while considering the application comes to the conclusion that an application is filed under Order VII Rule 10 and the same is a bar but if ingredients of Sec. 24 are satisfied, the Court can invoke Sec. 24 hence, the order requires to be set aside and the case has to be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction and there may not be any de-novo proceedings once again since already evidence has been completed and same has to be considered.