Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 TA233.19
IN THE COURT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR.BOMBAY
Transfer Application No.233 of 2019
In
Summary Suit No.477 of 2016
Manali Udani ..Respondent/plaintiff
V/s.
Tornado Motors Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors. ..Applicants/defendants
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
M.W. CHANDWANI
Dated : 18th December,2019
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr.Sushil Matkar i/b. CORPS Legal for applicant/defendant.
Advocate Ms.Kavita Lalwani for respondent/plaintiff.
O R A L O R D E R
Read application. Perused reply (Exh.3) filed by respondent.
Heard both the sides.
2 By the present application, the applicants/defendants are
seeking transfer of Summary Suit No.477/16 from C.R. No.13 and clubbing
of the same with all other suits or in any court as may deem fit in the
interest of justice as the defendants in all suit are same.
3 It appears that the plaintiff/respondent has filed the above suit
-- 1 of 4 --
2 TA233.19
against the defendants/applicants for recovery of amount. There are
several suits filed against the defendants for recovery of their respective
amounts. It is submitted by the applicants that plaintiff is related to one
family and in every alleged transaction, there is a common agent. It is also
submitted that all the matters are pending before respective courts are at
various stages.
4 The respondent/plaintiff filed her reply and contended that
s`he filed the suit for recovery of money on the basis of different Bills of
Exchange. Therefore, the cause of action to each suit is different. The
respondent further submits that applicants are intentionally delaying the
matter and prays to reject the application.
5 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”),
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.
6 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 Manharbala
Jeram Damodar and other V/s. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha and
-- 2 of 4 --
3 TA233.19
others reported in 2001(3) ALL MR 230 has held that the power under
Section 24 cannot be exercised for transferring the matters on the grounds
mentioned in the present application.
7 Moreover, merely because the defendants are same, in all the
suit it cannot be a ground to club the matter, though the plaintiff in each
mater is relatives of plaintiff in other matter, but the fact remains that
every suit has been filed on different Bill of Exchange, therefore, will be
decided independently of other suit. Here, convenience of the defendant
cannot be looked into for transfer of the matter to one court. Thus, even
on administrative ground, the application is not maintainable. In view of
this, no case is made out. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
Transfer Application No.233/19 stands rejected.
18/12/2019 (M.W. CHANDWANI)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 18/12/2019
Transcribed on : 18/12/2019
Signed by H.H.J. on : 18/12/2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4 TA233.19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 20/12/2019 (5.10 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri M.W. CHANDWANI(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 18th December,2019
Order signed by P.O. on 20th December,2019
Order uploaded on 20th December,2019
-- 4 of 4 --