JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. BAL KISHAN SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with respect to the order dated 4th September, 2008 of the District Judge Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the CPC. The petitioner seeks transfer of two suits pending before the courts of different Addl. District Judges to one court and transfer of two suits pending in the courts of two different Civil Judges also to the same court of the Addl. District Judge. Though one of the objections of the respondents is that the suits pending in the court of the Civil Judges cannot be transferred to the court of the Addl. District Judge in exercise of power under Section 24 of the CPC, thereby affecting the right of appeal but the said contention is no longer res integra. This court in Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. Manju Awasthy 68 (1997) DLT 112 has held that such a transfer can be allowed.

(2.) The only question which thus remains is whether a case for transfer is made out or not. The petitioner seeks transfer on the ground that the issues in all the four suits are interlinked.

(3.) One of the suits before the Addl. District Judge has been instituted by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner and his HUF for recovery of monies stated to have been advanced by way of personal loan. The other suit has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.1 only seeking rendition and inspection of accounts of a private limited company stated to have been jointly got incorporated by the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and in which both of them were directors. One of the suits before the Civil Judge has been filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and the respondent No.1 for recovery of rent. The other suit before the Civil Judge has also been filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and the respondent No.1 for declaration to the effect that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were the real owners of a business of which the respondent No.2 was a dummy proprietor.