1979 (5) TMI 152 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of suit under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
2. Common questions of fact and law in two suits.
3. Balance of convenience and expedience in the interest of justice.
4. Objection to territorial jurisdiction.
5. Application of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of Suit under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
The petitioner sought the transfer of Suit IB of 1972 from the District Court, Seoni, Madhya Pradesh, to the High Court of Madras (Original Side) under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as amended by Act 104 of 1976. The Supreme Court noted that the new Section 25 confers very wide powers of transfer, which are as extensive as the powers under Section 406 of the CrPC, 1973. The Court emphasized that the transfer of a suit is justified if it is "expedient in the ends of justice."

2. Common Questions of Fact and Law in Two Suits:
The Court observed that both the Seoni suit and the Madras suit involved common parties and issues. The principal common question in both suits was whether the second respondent and the fourth respondent were bound to make payments as the acceptor of the bills of exchange and the guarantors, respectively. The Court noted that if the two suits continued in their original forums, there was a possibility of conflicting findings on the question of liability under the Usance Bills and the guarantees.

3. Balance of Convenience and Expedience in the Interest of Justice:
The Court considered the balance of convenience and found that the evidence in both suits would mostly be common and locally available at Madras. The transfer of the Seoni suit to the Madras High Court would avoid multiplicity in the trial of common issues and obviate the risk of conflicting decisions. The Court concluded that it was "expedient in the interest of justice" for both suits to be tried by the Madras High Court on its Original Side.

4. Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction:
The second respondent's counsel opposed the transfer, arguing that it would be financially burdensome for a small company to litigate in Madras, which is about 1000 miles from Seoni. The counsel also expressed concern that the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras Court would be rendered ineffective by the transfer. The Court rejected these arguments, noting that both suits were at the same stage and that the common evidence was mostly documentary and located in Madras. The Court clarified that the transfer would be without prejudice to the second respondent's objection regarding the Madras High Court's jurisdiction.

5. Application of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The second respondent's counsel suggested staying the subsequently instituted suit at Madras under Section 10 of the CPC until the disposal of the Seoni suit. The Court did not address this argument, stating that it did not arise in the transfer petition and expressing no opinion on it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the petition and transferred Suit No. IB of 1972 from the District Court, Seoni, Madhya Pradesh, to the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Original Side). The Court emphasized that the transfer was justified to avoid multiplicity in the trial of common issues and the risk of conflicting decisions, and to ensure that justice was served expediently.