Shakuntala Sharma vs Maya Devi And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 301 Del

JUDGMENT

P.N. Nag, J.

(1) Counsel for the petitioner submits that two suits - one filed before the Sub Judge, Delhi and the other filed in this High Court - are exactly similar and based on same facts and on same cause of action. He submits that lest there should be any conflict of decisions between two suits and in order to avoid inconvenience, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to transfer the suit filed before the subordinate court to this High Court and decide both the suits together.

(2) I have perused the plaints of both the suits and reliefs sought for therein. In the suit filed before the subordinate court, the suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from releasing, withdrawing or paying any amount from the accounts of the deceased Rajinder Parshad in his name jointly or individually, the amounts and securities, F.D.Rs., Bonds and lockers etc. to defendant No.1 (petitioner herein). In the suit filed in this High Court, a declaration has been sought for in favor of plaintiff No.1 Smt. Shakuntala Sharma to the effect that the plaintiff No.1 alone is entitled to the entire estate left by the deceased Rajinder Parsad, exclusion of other heirs and alternatively a decree for partition has been sought for for all the estate of Shri Rajinder Parshad and3/5th share of the estate. A prayer has also been made for passing final decree for partition. I have also seen the facts and circumstances.

(3) To my mind the facts in both the suits are not exactly same as they are pretended to be. No case of transfer is made out.