Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 TA121.19
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Transfer Application No.121 of 2019
In
Summary Suit No.3734 of 2011
Vashulal M. Talreja(Since deceased)
through
1a Smt.Poonam Vashulal Talreja
& Ors. ..Applicants/plaintiffs
V/s.
Mrs.Vandana S. Punwani &
anr. ..Respondents/Defendants
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
V.G. BISHT
Dated : 23rd July,2019
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr.Amar Talreja for applicants.
Advocate Mr.Sachin Bansode i/b. PRS Legal for respondent no.1.
Advocate Mr.A.R. Pai i/b. Advocate Mr.N.N. Thakkar for respondent no.2.
O R A L O R D E R
Read application supported by affidavit. Read affidavit in
reply (Exh.7) of respondent no.1 and of respondent no.2 (Exh.5).
2 The applicants/plaintiffs have filed Summary Suit No.3734 of
2011 against respondents/defendants which is pending now in C.R. No.40
-- 1 of 6 --
2 TA121.19
and has been expedited vide order dated 8th October,2015 (Exh.C) passed
by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.3659 of 2015 with Civil
Application No.950 of 2015.
3 According to applicants, earlier the suit was in C.R. no.28 and
the final arguments from the side of plaintiffs were over. Even defendant
no.1 had also completed the final arguments. Meanwhile, the Presiding
Officer of C.R. no.28 was transferred to C.R. No.22. The applicants pray
that since the said suit is partheard and is expedited by the Hon'ble High
Court, it is necessary that it be retransferred to Presiding Judge of C.R.
no.22 who had heard the matter at length. Hence, this application.
4 The respondent nos.1 and 2 vide their replies opposed the
application on the ground of maintainability. According to them, this kind
of application can be only filed before the High Court or the District Court.
In the light of provisions of Section 24 of code of Civil Procedure this court
not being a District Court, the application is not maintainable and
moreover in Gr.Bombay, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction is
the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay. Thus, this court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the present application.
5 Mr. Amar Talreja, learned counsel for applicants, submitted
that this court being a Principal Court has every power under Section 24 of
Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the matter to any other court in the
interest of justice. This court can exercise the powers under Section 151 of
-- 2 of 6 --
3 TA121.19
Code of Civil Procedure as well, argued learned counsel.
6 The learned counsel next contended that not only the final
arguments were partheard by the Presiding Officer who is now presiding
in C.R. no.22 but the fact that the suit has already been expedited by the
Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice and to
save the time of parties and as well as of court, it is necessary that the suit
be transferred from C.R. no.40 to the court of Presiding Judge (C.R.no.22)
who had heard the matter partly at length.
7 Mr.A.R. Pai, learned counsel for respondent no.2, at the very
outset, questioned the maintainability of the application by contending that
this court not being the District Court in the light of provisions of Section
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has no jurisdiction or the power to grant
any relief. The learned counsel also placed reliance in Manharbala Jeram
Damodar and another V/s. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha and others,
2001(2) Mh.L.J.477. The said line of argument is also adopted by
Mr.Sachin Bansode, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
8 The only question to be determined here is whether this court
can exercise powers under Section 24 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.
9 Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines District
Court. “District” means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Principal
Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a “District Court”),
-- 3 of 6 --
4 TA121.19
and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a
High Court. From the definition, it is more than clear that Principal Civil
Court of original jurisdiction in Mumbai is the Hon'ble High Court.
10 I may also refer here that while considering the provisions of
Section 10 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act,1882, the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in Dadajee Dhackjee & Co. Ltd. V/s. Neelam V.
Rajani and Ors., 2016(1) All.MR.426 and in the case of Monharbala
Jeram Damodar (Smt.) & another V/s. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha
& others,(Supra) has held that the power under Section 24 cannot be
exercised for transferring the matters on the grounds mentioned in the
present application.
11 In view of above, this court not being a Principal Court of
original jurisdiction, the power under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure
cannot be exercised in the present matter. Therefore, the present
application is not maintainable.
12 It is also contended before me by learned counsel for
applicants that under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, this court has
ample power in order to meet the ends of justice to transfer the matter.
Recourse to Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is unwarranted in view
of provisions of Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. Invocation of
inherent powers under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is thus out
of question and this has been so held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case
-- 4 of 6 --
5 TA121.19
of Dadajee Dhackjee & Co. Ltd. V/s. Neelam V. Rajani and Ors.,
(Supra).
13 Considering the conclusion arrived as aforesaid, I pass the
following order:
O R D E R
Transfer Application No.121 of 2019 stands rejected.
23/07/2019 (V. G. BISHT)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 23/07/2019
Transcribed on : 23/07/2019
Signed by HHJ on : 23/07/2019
-- 5 of 6 --
6 TA121.19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 23/07/2019 (5.00 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri V.G. BISHT(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 23rd July,2019
Order signed by P.O. on 23rd July,2019
Order uploaded on 23rd July,2019
-- 6 of 6 --