GK HARIHARA RAJAN Vs. NEETHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner has filed this civil revision petition praying this Court to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directing the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the M.P.S.R.No.23397 of 2008 in Tr.O.P.No.257 of 2007 and to consider the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in (2008) 2 SCC at page 585.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai should not have returned the petition with citation on the endorsement that orders were passed and that the Principal Judge, City Civil Court ought not to have rejected the citation advanced by the petitioner, but should have atleast referred the same in the order and further that the M.P.S.R.No.23397 of 2008 to reopen for presenting the recent judgment of Honourable Supreme Court has reached the Principal Judge, City Civil Court while criminal matters were being called and also even before the Civil cases were called and that the Principal Judge, City Civil Court has ignored the Article 147 of the Constitution and that the crux of the transfer petition has been for a joint trial in order to avoid plurality of orders by different Courts in the same subject matter and when the petitioner's contention that he has been making all attempts since 1995 to deposit the mortgage money encumbered with his property etc., has been accepted by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, then an order for joint trial should have been passed and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

(3.) THE learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has passed orders in Tr.O.P.No.257 of 2007 on 03.06.2008 inter alia stating that -admittedly the Court of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai would not be competent to try the suit as it would be having no competence both with respect to subject matter and also pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. THErefore, by way of transfer by this Court cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court of IX Assistant Judge, which is not competent originally to try the suit. It is well settled that neither consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction on a Court otherwise incompetent to try the suit etc. and resultantly, dismissed the petition-.