BOLLAVA SATHYASHANKARA Vs. P. MANJUNATHA UPADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil petition, petitioner is seeking transfer of O.S. No. 55/2007 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kundapur to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore, D.K. District, where O.S. No. 47/2010 and O.S. No. 107/2010 are pending. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 55/2007 which is filed by the respondent herein seeking recovery of Rs. 5,52,765/ - together with future interest thereon. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ - from the plaintiff on 15.06.2004 by way of hand loan and failed to repay the same. When plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the amount, defendant issued a cheque dated 14.05.2007 drawn on Vysya Bank Limited for a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/ -, but the said cheque having been dishonoured on 03.06.2007, O.S. No. 55/2007 was instituted for recovery of the amount along with interest. It is also necessary to notice here that plaintiff has also filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque. Defendant has entered appearance and has filed his written statement. He has taken up a defence that the suit has been instituted to have unlawful gain in conspiracy with one K. Narayana Bhat, who had introduced the plaintiff to the defendant. He has urged that he had not borrowed any money, nor issued any cheque to the plaintiff to repay the said amount.

(2.) IT is relevant to notice here that two other suits in O.S. Nos. 47/2010 and 107/2010 are filed by two other persons by name Ganesh Kamath and Kamalaksha Prabhu against the petitioner herein. Those suits are pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore, D.K. In those suits also plaintiffs have sought recovery of different sums of money based on the cheques issued by the very defendant/petitioner herein. In these cases also, petitioner has taken up similar contentions and similar defence alleging conspiracy, fraud and has urged the involvement of one K. Narayana Bhat. In sum and substance, defence of the defendant in all the three cases is similar. Indeed, it transpires that all the three persons namely Ganesh Kamath, Kamalaksha Prabhu and the present respondent Manjunatha Upadhya have together filed O.S. No. 10/2010 wherein they have sought for a declaration that the Settlement Deed executed by the petitioner herein in favour of his son was illegal. It is also relevant to notice here that private complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the three plaintiffs are pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Mangalore. It is also brought on record that petitioner herein has filed a complaint against the three plaintiffs and one K. Narayana Bhat alleging offence under Section 420 IPC which is pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Mangalore.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment in the case of State Bank of India vs. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. and Another - : (2007) 1 SCC 97 to contend that in cases where common issues and common questions fall for consideration in two or more suits, it is appropriate that the said suits have to be tried together and disposed of by the same Court.