GURDEEPSINGH Vs. GURUCHARANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Adv. Mr. S.S. Sanyal waives service on behalf of respondent No. 1. By consent of the counsel for the rival parties, this Civil Revision Application is taken up for final hearing. The applicants are aggrieved by an order dated 22nd November, 2012 passed by Principal District Judge, Amravati, in Misc. Civil Application No. 73 of 2012, filed by the present respondent No. 1 - plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 270 of 2011, under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In support of the Revision Application, learned Adv. Mr. Chandurkar for the Revision Applicants contended that the impugned order of transfer is illegal, because one is a suit for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, whereas the subject matter of other suit pertains to partition etc. One suit will lie before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), while the other would lie before the Court of Small Causes. The jurisdictions of the Courts in respect of the aforesaid two suits are different. The parties to these both the suits are different, the subject-matters of the suits also differ and, therefore, the learned District Judge could not have made an order of transfer of suits to one Court. Learned Adv. Mr. Chandurkar also argued that the order of transfer of a suit, which relates to section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, made by the District Judge, is misconceived, since in the fact-situation, the said provision is not available. Mr. Chandurkar then continued to argue that the learned Principal District Judge also made an order to try both the suits together, which, in effect and in law, amounts to consolidation of the suits for the purpose of hearing.

(3.) Per contra, learned Adv. Mr. Sanyal for the respondents, supported the impugned order, and argued that the learned Principal District Judge has made a transfer for the reasons stated in the order, and at any rate, he found that there should no conflict of findings in judgment, since issues about partition and eviction are closely interrelated and the parties are also related to each other. For the reasons in the partition suit, the determination of shares and entitlement, identification etc., will have to be made, which has an impact on the suit for eviction equally also. He, therefore, argued that the order of transfer of suit in exercise of the judicial discretion exercised by the Principal District Judge cannot be faltered. He then argued that the Principal District Judge went ahead and made an order of trying the suits together since he found that it was necessary to do so, in order to avoid any conflict of findings. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Revision Application.