P V ARUMUGAM Vs. GURUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been directed against the order passed in Transfer O.P. No.84 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Erode. The said Petition was filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. for transferring O.S. No.21 of 2006 pending on the file of subordinate Judge, Bhavani to the Court with O.S. No.214 of 2007. The learned First Additional District Judge, Erode, had dismissed the Petition on the ground that the evidence in O.S. No.21 of 2006 will be voluminous on the other hand, the evidence to be recorded in O.S. No.214 of 2007 will be limited.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, in O.S. No.21 of 2006 and in O.S. No.214 of 2007 both the plaintiff and the first defendant are one and the same. The second defendant in O.S. No.21 of 2006 viz., Mariammal, is the mother of the first defendant Gurusamy and Marimuthu, the third defendant is the vendee under the first defendant Gurusamy. O.S. No.21 of 2006 was filed to declare that the registered sale deed dated 26.4.2006 executed by the first and second defendants in favour of the third defendant in O.S. No.21 of 2006 as null and void. But in the cause of action column, it has been clearly stated that the first defendant viz., Gurusamy in O.S. No.21 of 2006 had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the foot of a promissory note dated 30.6.2005 and that the first and second defendants viz., Gurusamy and his mother Mariammal had with an intention to defraud the creditors to execute the sale deed in favour of the third defendant. Only on that ground, O.S. No.21 of 2006 has been filed for declaration that the sale deed dated 26.4.2006 said to have been executed by the first and second defendants in favour of the third defendant as null and void.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on a decision reported in State Bank of India v. Rangan Chemicals Ltd, 2007 (1) SCC 97, would contend that when two actions arose out of the same transaction then joint trial of the cases should be ordered. THE relevant observation in the said ratio decidendi of the Honourable Apex Court runs as follows: