KARTAR SINGH Vs. JHARKHAND MINES AND INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petnr. instituted Title Suit No. 27 of 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ranchi against the opposite parties 1 to 5, Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had also instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh against the petitioner and some of the opposite party. THE prayer in the present application is that as the subject-matter of the two suits is the same and the main parties who are chiefly interested in the reliefs claimed in the two suits are the same and common questions are for consideration in both the suits, Title Suit No. 27 of 1951 pending at Ranchi may be transferred to Hazaribagh and tried along with Title Suit No. 3 of 1951 pending there, or that Title Suit No. 3 of 1951 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh be transferred to Ranchi.

(2.) HAVING regard to what is stated in the petition, there can be no question that the two suits should be tried by the same Court. Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh appearing for the plaintiff's in Title Suit No. 3 of 1951 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh had contended that Title Suit No. 27 of 1951 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ranchi should be transferred to Hazaribagh. as that would be more convenient for his client and his client's witnesses. Mr. Bose appearing for Opposite Party 5 in this application, namely, the East Indian Railway administration, subjected to Title Suit No. 27 of 1951 being transferred from Ranchi to Hazaribagh on the ground that one of the main defences of his client would be amongst others, that the Court at Ranchi had no jurisdiction to try Title Suit No. 27 of 1951, and subsequently, having regard to the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of -- 'Ledgard v. Bull' a All 191 (PC) (A) there would be difficulty in this Court directing the transfer of the Ranchi suit to Hazaribagh. According to the decision cited, the Court from which a case is being transferred should have jurisdiction to try it. In the present case Mr. Bose contended that the Ranchi Court had no jurisdiction to try Title Suit No. 27 of 1951 in which his client has been made a party. His client was not a party in the Hazaribagh suit. It was contended, therefore. that the better course would be to transfer Title Suit No. 3 of 1951 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh to Ranchi. It has not been contended by any party before me that Title Suit No. 3 of 1951 brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh was brought before a Court which had no jurisdiction to try it. There could, therefore, be no difficulty in transferring Title Suit No. 3 of 1951 from Hazaribagh to Ranchi. So far as convenience is concerned, Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh's client would have to go to Ranchi to defend that suit and such witnesses as he had relied upon for his defence in that suit would have to go to Ranchi. It seems to me, therefore, that no extra burden is added to the client of Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh if Title Suit No. 3 of 1951 is transferred from the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh to Ranchi.

(3.) THERE will be no order for costs.