S KOUSALYA Vs. P K ILAVARASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in Tr. O. P. No. 259 of 2007 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The revision petitioner herein has filed Tr. O. P. No. 259 of 2007 under Section 24 of CPC before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai praying for an order to withdraw and transfer the suit O. S. No. 5232 of 2007 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to be tried along with O. S. No. 3596 of 2007 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for effectual adjudication and determination of the issues between the parties herein and after contest, the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has dismissed the petition.

(2.) THE learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing orders in Tr. O. P. No. 259 of 2007 has inter alia opined that ' if the transfer is allowed, it would only create confusion and delay the proceedings ultimately resulting in undesirable results and it is for the plaintiffs to choose the Court and he cannot compelled to allow his case to be tried along with another suit where he is not a party and in this case, if transfer is ordered then the respondents 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 5232 of 2007 will be compelled to conduct the suit which they are not concerned with and resultantly has dismissed the petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has failed to note that the issues are common by virtue of the fact that the property concerned with the schedule of the suit is one and the same and even the interests claimed by the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs in O. S. No. 5232 of 2007 is common in nature and therefore, the transfer petition ought to have been allowed by the Court in the interest of justice and the balance of convenience and further that the property in regard to O. S. No. 5232 of 2007 pending on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and O. S. No. 3596 of 2007 pending on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai pertaining to property is one and the same should have allowed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and further that the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has taken into account that the first respondent and the second respondent are not parties in O. S. No. 3596 of 2007 filed by the petitioner as plaintiff, has come to a conclusion in dismissing the transfer petition ignoring the fact that the property concerned with the main issue of holding possession under law is one and the same and the very right which is claimed by the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2 are only way of emanating the rights accrued from the third respondent as legal heir of deceased mother who claimed the absolute ownership and these aspects have not taken note of by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai while dealing with the transfer petition and that the balance of convenience and also the property in respect of both the suits by way of schedule is one and the same and these aspects of the matter has not been borne in mind by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and therefore prays for allowing this revision petition in the interest of justice.