PITAMBAR PADHI Vs. SANTILATA PADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2 and husband of opposite party No. 1. Opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter respectively of petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 4 is the father of opposite party No. 1.

(2.) The petitioners have filed the present application under S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of O.S.No. 93 of 1982 pending in the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska to the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack. O.S.No. 93 of 1982 was filed by opposite party No. 1 against the petitioners on 24-11-82 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska praying for judicial separation and maintenance. The judicial separation is sought for on the grounds of cruelty, neglect, assault, etc. The petitioners have already appeared and filed their written statement. Issues have already been framed and the suit is ready for hearing. After the filing of O.S.No. 93 of 1982 petitioner No. 1 filed O.S. No. 17 of 1983 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack on 27-7-83 praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In this suit the present opposite parties 1 and 4 who are the defendants have already filed their written statement.

(3.) Admittedly petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnised at Surada on 27-5-74 within the jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska. Accordingly opposite party No. 1 along with her children has filed O.S. No. 93 of 1982 for judicial separation and maintenance in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Aska. It appears from the pleadings that petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 had had last resided at Cuttack and accordingly petitioner No. 1 has filed O.S. No. 17 of 1983 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack. The two courts at Cuttack and Aska no doubt have jurisdiction to try the two suits by virtue of the provisions contained in S.19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, all the same in view of the fact that the two suits involve the same parties and the questions to be decided in the two suits will be substantially the same, it is necessary in the interests of justice that the two suits should be tried at the same place and by the same Judge. In this context reference may be made to two decisions of this Court reported in AIR 1953 Orissa 46 (Purna Chandra Mahanty v. Samanta Radha Prasana Das) and (1968) 34 Cut LT 483 (Chandrasekhar Tripathy v. Sashibhusan Tripathy. In the former decision it was held :