RAMA RAJENDRAM Vs. VENKATALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were defendants in O. S. No. 410 of 1974 on the file of the District MunsiPs Court, Warangal. It was instituted by their late brother Ramakistaiah for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The defence of the petitioners in that suit was that partnership was already dissolved and accounts were settled in pursuance of an arbitration. The petitioners were also defendants in O. S. No. 46 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court, Warangal filed again by the late Ramakistaiah for partition of moveable and immovable properties belonging to the joint family. The defence in that suit was also the same as in the above O. S. 410 of 1974, that moveable and immovable properties belonging jointly to the brothers were divided by reason of the same arbitration by which the . partnership was dissolved and accounts were settled. In those circumstances, the defendants in the above suits filed O. P. 57 of 1977 on the file of the District Judge, Warangal seeking transfer of partnership suit from the Court of the District Munsif to the Court of Subordinate Judge to be tried along with the partition suit. That petition was ordered by the District Judge on 7th of Sept., 1977. The learned District Judge had withdrawn O.S. 410/74 from the file of the Principal-Munsif Magistrate, Waransal to his file and transferred the same to the file of the Subordinate Judge, Warangal for being tried jointly with O. S. 46 of 1974. In pursuance of that order, the partnership suit from the Munsif's Court stood transferred to the Sub Court. But the Subordinate Judge was going ahead with separate trials of these two suits instead of clubbing them together and trying them jointly as directed by the District Judge. The petitioners herein, therefore, moved I.A. 953 of 1979 in O. S. 96 of 1977 (the partnership suit being renumbered) under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying that the learned Subordinate Judge may try the partnership suit and the partition suit together. That application was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge by his order of 8th February, 1980. It is against that order of refusal of the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal, that the present C. R. P. has been filed.

(2.) When the matter first came up for admission, I ordered notices to the respondents so that I might hear and dispose of the whole matter. Notices have accordingly been served on the respondents, but they did not appear. Now, the matter comes up for final hearing.

(3.) It is argued by Mr. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners, that the February order of the Subordinate Judge against which this revision is filed, is wrong for two reasons one is for the reason of disobedience of the order of the District Judge and the other is on merits. It is argued tbat the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have obeyed the order of the District Judge dated 7th September, 1977 directing joint trial of the two suits. It is argued that the learned Subordinate Judge in refusing to comply with the order of the District Judge, was clearly doing something seriously wrong and improper and acting without jurisdiction. It would be undoubtedly illegal for any Subordinate Judge to disregard and disobey an order of any District Judge passed in exercise of the latter's judicial discretion ; provided that the order of the District Judge was one made within his jurisdiction. On the other hand, different legal results would follow if the order of the learned District Judge in issue was one made without jurisdiction. It would therefore be necessary for me to consider the question whether order of the learned District Judge of 7th September, 1977 directing joint trial of the suit O. S. No. 410 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Warangal with O. S. 46 of 1974 was legal and was one made within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge. The power to transfer a Civil Suit from one Court to another Court is conferred on a District Judge by means of Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge's order was one made under Section 24 of the C.P.C. It is necessary to read the relevant parts of Section 24 C.P.C. "the District Court may at any stage, whithdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court, subordinate to it, and try and dispose of the same, or transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn".