DR. SUKADEV NANDA Vs. DR. KASTURI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transfer of Civil Suit No. 136 of 2009 from the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore. The petitioner is the Ex -Vice Chancellor of Fakir Mohan University. Now he is residing in Bhubaneswar. O.P. No. 2 was a Professor in Environmental Science in the same University. O.P. No. 1 is the wife of O.P. No. 2. During the incumbency of the petitioner as Vice Chancellor of the University, O.P. No. 2 faced an enquiry and on the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee, the petitioner submitted a report before the Syndicate and on that basis the University wrote a letter to the State Government not to extend the lien of O.P. No. 2 beyond 10.5.2007. Against that O.P. No. 2 filed a writ petition before this Court wherein order was passed directing the University to take a fresh decision according to the statute. After the order of this Court, the Syndicate on the recommendation of the petitioner terminated the service of O.P. No. 2 on the ground that his service was no longer required by the University. O.P. No. 2 again approached this Court challenging the said termination order which was ultimately set aside by this Court with a direction to the University to give sufficient opportunity of hearing to O.P. No. 2 on the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to O.P. No. 2 by the University and ultimately O.P. No. 2 was directed to join in his service.

(2.) ON the aforesaid cause of action, O.P. No. 2 has filed a suit (C.S. No. 15 of 2009 -III) before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs alleging that on the false and baseless allegation made by the petitioner, he suffered mental pain besides loss of reputation and other set backs in his career. The same suit is still pending in the Court at Balasore.

(3.) THE O.Ps. have filed counter wherein they have denied that identical questions are involved in both the suits and that voluminous documents and numerous witnesses are required to be carried to Bhubaneswar. So far as the documents are concerned, it is stated in the counter that since copies of the documents are available, it is not necessary to cause production of the original documents.