Skip to content


N. Krishnaji Rao Vs. Gokuldas Harbhagavandas and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Petn. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1955
Judge
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 24
AppellantN. Krishnaji Rao
RespondentGokuldas Harbhagavandas and anr.
Appellant AdvocateC.N. Ramaswamy Sastry, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.R. Janardanam and ;L.S. Seshagiri Rao, Advs.
Cases ReferredSingara Mudaliar v. Govindaswami Chetty
Excerpt:
- labour & services promotion: :[subhash b adi, j] road transport corporation act (64 of 1950), section 45 - karnataka state road transport corporation servants (conduct and discipline) regulations, 1971, regulation 7 - petitioner employee removed from service in pursuance of disciplinary action - however subsequently reinstated by order of writ court his seniority also restored - but his case for promotion was not considered -reinstatement order was based solely on memos filed by parties - both parties agreed to reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages held, if petitioner is entitled to all other benefits except back wages, there is no reason for not considering his case for promotion. moreover statement of court that petitioner would not be..........that the defendant's witnesses are residing in mysore and that under these circumstances the cases pending in the court of the principal subordinate judge, bangalore, may be transferred to the file of the subordinate judge's court, mysore.3. the respondents-plaintiffs oppose the application. it appears to me that there arc not sufficient materials for allowing these petitions. the mere fact that some of the issues in these cases arc iden-tical, that the witnesses of the defendant arc residing at mysore and that ail the 15 bundles have to be exhibited in each is not, in my opinion, sufficient to transfer the cases that are pending in the sub-ordinate judge's court, bangalore.the plaintiffs are opposed to the transfer of these cases and according to them, their witnesses are living.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. These are two petitions filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 24, Civil P. C. praying that O. S. 141/54 and 219/54 pending in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, may be 'transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, to be tried along with O. S. Nos. 115 and 116/54 pending on the file of that Court. C. P. 10/55 relates to the transfer of O. S. 141/54 and C. P. 11/55 to the transfer of O. S. 219/54. The same point arises for decision in both these cases and therefore both of them will be covered by a common order,

2. The allegations 'made in the application and affidavit in support of the transfer are that some of the issues in all these cases are identical, that all the hundies which are the subject-matter of these four suits were executed in Mysore that all the 15 hundies will have to be exhibited in each of the four cases, that the oral evidence that the defendant has to adduce is common to all the cases, that the defendant's witnesses are residing in Mysore and that under these circumstances the cases pending in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, may be transferred to the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mysore.

3. The respondents-plaintiffs oppose the application. It appears to me that there arc not sufficient materials for allowing these petitions. The mere fact that some of the issues in these cases arc iden-tical, that the witnesses of the defendant arc residing at Mysore and that ail the 15 bundles have to be exhibited in each is not, in my opinion, sufficient to transfer the cases that are pending in the Sub-ordinate Judge's Court, Bangalore.

The plaintiffs are opposed to the transfer of these cases and according to them, their witnesses are living in Bangalore. It has also to be remembered that the plaintiffs in these cases are different. Therefore, I am of opinion, that the grounds urged in the application and affidavit are not sufficient to warrant a transfer as desired by the defendant.

4. Again there appears to be a legal impediment for the transfer of the cases from the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, to the Court of the Subordinate Judge in Mysore. In the suits pending before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the defendant has admittedly taken a stand that the Sub-Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is not open to a defendant to contend that a particular Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and at the same time ask for a transfer of the case to some other Court.

In this connection, I would like to refer to tile decisions reported in -- 'Gangumal v. Nanikram', -AIR 1932 Sind 215 (A), and -- 'Singara Mudaliar v. Govindaswami Chetty', AIR 1928 Mad 400 (B). In the first case. His Lordship has held that a superior Court cannot make an order of transfer of a case under the appropriate section of the Civil Procedure Code unless the Court from which the transfer is sought to be made has jurisdiction to try it, and that a defendant cannot therefore raise an issue as to the jurisdiction of a Court in which the suit is pending and at the same time apply for transfer of the case under Section 24.

In the latter decision, it is laid down that a transfer cannot be made from one Court to another, unless the suit has in the first instance been brought in a Court having jurisdiction and that such, an order if made would be void. I hold that these two petitions are liable to be dismissed.

5. In the result, these petitions i.e., C. P. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1955 stand dismissed with costs of the respondents, Advocate's fee Rs. 25/- in each.

6. Petition dismissed.


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