Indira Uppal vs J.N. Uppal And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 72 Del

JUDGMENT

H.R. Malhotra, J.

1. This is an application made by the Decree-holder Ms. Indira Uppal under the provisions of Section 24, CPC read with Order 21 Rule 18, CPC seeking transfer of another execution case 12/2004 currently pending before the Court of Sh. R.P. Pandey, ADJ so that execution application No. 102/ 2002 presently pending before this Court can be heard with execution application 12/2004, these two execution applications having arisen out of the award dated 25.11.2001. It is urged by the Counsel for the appellant/DH that earlier both the execution applications were pending before this Court but because of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, the execution application No. 12/2004 was transferred to the District Judge in November, 2003.

2. It is contended by the Decree-holder that since the Decree-holder is JD No. 1 in execution No. 12/2004 and the dates of awards in both the matters were 25th November, 2001 and that since parties in both the cases are same except addition of one more party viz. Mohit Mehta in Ex No. 12/04, therefore these executions application which were earlier being heard together but separated because of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts, should be heard again together so as to avoid multiplicity of judicial receipts.

3. This application has been contested by the non-applicants/JDs. Though no reply was filed to this application but written submissions were filed giving details of the two execution applications. I have looked into the written submissions so filed by the JDs. It is urged that the present execution has nothing to do with the subject matter of the execution filed by Sh. J.N. Uppal in Suit No. 528/94 and that the question of seeking the transfer of the execution pending in the Court of Sh. R.P. Pandey, ADJ, Delhi to this Court shall be of no relevance for the purposes of dealing with the execution application No. 102/ 2002 as this execution application is required to be taken up on its own merits.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. There is no denial of the fact that both the matters were earlier pending before this Court but because of amendments in the rules, the pecuniary jurisdictions of the District Court were enhanced and this necessitated the transfer of Ex. No. 102/2004 to the District Judge. The matter which pertains to both the suits is substantially similar in nature. Otherwise too both the suits would have remained here but for enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction.

5. Looking to the nature of disputes between the parties and also bearing in mind the award given by the Arbitrator in both the suits, it is considered just and expedient that both the execution applications should remain with one Court so as to ensure that conflicting observations and orders are not passed in two execution applications which as to my mind are co-related to each other. Dealing with these two matters separately by two different Courts would be rather to the detriment to the parties interests.

6. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that two execution applications need to be heard together as these two execution applications are closely connected not only in terms of facts but in terms of legal position and therefore hearing these two applications separately, one by the High Court and another by the District Court would be to detriment of the parties. Consequently while allowing the application it is ordered that file of execution application No. 12/2004 pending before Sh. R.P. Pandey, ADJ, be sent in this Court.

Renotify on 2nd February, 2005 before the appropriate Bench.