Full Text
Translation output
A-26
% 13.09.2011
Present: Mr.Nishant Duttta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate for respondents No. 1
& 3.
Mr. Amit Chadha,Advocate for respondent No. 2.
+Tr.P.(C.) No. 39/2010 & CM Nos.12009/2010 & 12011/2010
*
By way of this transfer petition, the petitioner is seeking transfer of suit No. 38/06/03 which is pending before the Civil
Judge,Tis Hazari Central District to the court oflearned ADJ, West
District Tis Hazari where the second suit filed by him i.e. suit NO. 462/2009 is pending; contention is that the subject matter of both the two suits is the same i.e. relating to the FDR which the plaintiff had deposited with the Government body in the course of the contract which he was executing qua the defendant; parties are also the same and to avoid conflict of judgments, it would be appropriate that if both the suits are tried by the same Court. The respondents have been served; contention of respondent No. 2 in the second suit (i.e. suit No. 462/2009)is that the suits are triable by two different hierarchy of courts; the first suit is pending before the Civil Judge and the second suit is pending before the learned
ADJ; it is pointed out that Indian Bank which is party in the first suit is not a party in the second suit.
The averments made in plaints of both the suits as also the
2011:DHC:19097 pray6rs mad© therGin havG bG6n pGmsGd.The first suit i.G. Suit NO. 38/06/03 has been filed by the plaintiff namely Pioneer Properties
& Construction Company arraying four defendants; the Indian
Bank arrayed as defendant No.4 is not a party in the second suit.
The FDR has been drawn upon defendant No.4 bank; prayer made in the first suit is that a decree of declaration be passed declaring the departmental recovery on the FDR along with the interest sector be not recovered from the defendants and they be restrained from encashing the FDR No.629758 dated 05.04.2000 in the sum of 50,000/-.
The second suit which is Suit No. 462/2009 has been filed by the same plaintiff namely Pioneer Properties & Construction
Company arraying five defendants; the Indian Bank is not a party in this second suit; the prayer in this suit is that the FDR which is lying deposited with the CPWD be returned to the plaintiff with an alternate prayer for compensation of?3.5 lacs.
The contents of the two suits show that the parties are by and large the same; subject matter of dispute is also the same; in case relief is granted or not granted by two different courts, there could be a conflict ofjudgment. To avoid this position, it would be expedient and in the interest ofjustice that the prayer made in the application is allowed. Accordingly suit No. 38/06/03 v/hich is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Central District
?
(which is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction) is transferred to the Court of learned ADJ, West District Tis Hazari, where the second suit i.e. suit No. 462/2009 (which is a suit for return of the FDR)is pending;for the said purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi on 19.09.2011 at 10:30 AM who shall pass the necessary orders for transfer of the suit pending before the Civil
Judge, Central District to the Court of ADJ, West District Tis
Hazari.
With these directions, this petition is dispose^ of.
Order dasti.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 a
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
% 13.09.2011
Present: Mr.Nishant Duttta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate for respondents No. 1
& 3.
Mr. Amit Chadha,Advocate for respondent No. 2.
+Tr.P.(C.) No. 39/2010 & CM Nos.12009/2010 & 12011/2010
*
By way of this transfer petition, the petitioner is seeking transfer of suit No. 38/06/03 which is pending before the Civil
Judge,Tis Hazari Central District to the court oflearned ADJ, West
District Tis Hazari where the second suit filed by him i.e. suit NO. 462/2009 is pending; contention is that the subject matter of both the two suits is the same i.e. relating to the FDR which the plaintiff had deposited with the Government body in the course of the contract which he was executing qua the defendant; parties are also the same and to avoid conflict of judgments, it would be appropriate that if both the suits are tried by the same Court. The respondents have been served; contention of respondent No. 2 in the second suit (i.e. suit No. 462/2009)is that the suits are triable by two different hierarchy of courts; the first suit is pending before the Civil Judge and the second suit is pending before the learned
ADJ; it is pointed out that Indian Bank which is party in the first suit is not a party in the second suit.
The averments made in plaints of both the suits as also the
2011:DHC:19097 pray6rs mad© therGin havG bG6n pGmsGd.The first suit i.G. Suit NO. 38/06/03 has been filed by the plaintiff namely Pioneer Properties
& Construction Company arraying four defendants; the Indian
Bank arrayed as defendant No.4 is not a party in the second suit.
The FDR has been drawn upon defendant No.4 bank; prayer made in the first suit is that a decree of declaration be passed declaring the departmental recovery on the FDR along with the interest sector be not recovered from the defendants and they be restrained from encashing the FDR No.629758 dated 05.04.2000 in the sum of 50,000/-.
The second suit which is Suit No. 462/2009 has been filed by the same plaintiff namely Pioneer Properties & Construction
Company arraying five defendants; the Indian Bank is not a party in this second suit; the prayer in this suit is that the FDR which is lying deposited with the CPWD be returned to the plaintiff with an alternate prayer for compensation of?3.5 lacs.
The contents of the two suits show that the parties are by and large the same; subject matter of dispute is also the same; in case relief is granted or not granted by two different courts, there could be a conflict ofjudgment. To avoid this position, it would be expedient and in the interest ofjustice that the prayer made in the application is allowed. Accordingly suit No. 38/06/03 v/hich is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Central District
?
(which is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction) is transferred to the Court of learned ADJ, West District Tis Hazari, where the second suit i.e. suit No. 462/2009 (which is a suit for return of the FDR)is pending;for the said purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi on 19.09.2011 at 10:30 AM who shall pass the necessary orders for transfer of the suit pending before the Civil
Judge, Central District to the Court of ADJ, West District Tis
Hazari.
With these directions, this petition is dispose^ of.
Order dasti.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 a
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
JUDGMENT