Skip to content


Hari Ram Vs. Anil Kumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 2113 of 1985
Judge
Reported inAIR1986P& H326
AppellantHari Ram
RespondentAnil Kumar
Excerpt:
.....a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 5. under the circumstances, both the revision petitions fail and are dismissed with costs......judge at hissar. the defendant moved two transfer applications separately before the district judge, hissar, for the transfer of the said two suits from the court at hissar to the court of competent jurisdiction at fatehabad. the main ground urged for seeking the said transfer of the suits before the district judge was that the court at hissar had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits and, therefore the same be transferred to fatehabad where the court had the jurisdiction to try them. this submission did not find favour with the learned district judge. consequently, both the transfer applications were dismissed. dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed these two revision petitions in this court.3. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i do not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitioners Nos. 2113 and 2116 of 1985, as the question involved is common in both the cases.

2. The plaintiff-respondent Anil Kumar filed two suits against the defendant-petitioner Hari Ram in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hissar. The defendant moved two transfer applications separately before the District Judge, Hissar, for the transfer of the said two suits from the Court at Hissar to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Fatehabad. The main ground urged for seeking the said transfer of the suits before the District Judge was that the Court at Hissar had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits and, therefore the same be transferred to Fatehabad where the Court had the jurisdiction to try them. This submission did not find favour with the learned District Judge. Consequently, both the transfer applications were dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed these two revision petitions in this Court.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in these revision petitions.

4. Admittedly, in the two suits, the defendant has raised the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Hissar to entertain the suits which is pending adjudication before the Court. That being so, no transfer of the suit could be sought on the ground.

5. Under the circumstances, both the revision petitions fail and are dismissed with costs.

Petitions dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //