Babita Roy vs Ujjal Roy
2021 Latest Caselaw 3459 Gua

                                                                         Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010234562017




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : CRP/120/2017

            BABITA ROY
            W/O- SRI UTTAM ROY, R/O- SANTIPARA, 2ND LANE, P.O, P.S and DIST-
            DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001



            VERSUS

            UJJAL ROY
            S/O- LATE SAMARENDRA ROY, R/O- SANTIPARA, 2ND LANE, P.O, P.S and
            DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001

            2:RESPONDENT- 3
             RESPONDENT-

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.D K MEDHI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR S KHOUND




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                                         ORDER

Date : 14.12.2021

Heard Mr. D. K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3. None appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Page No.# 2/4

challenging the order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the learned District Judge Dibrugarh in Misc (T) Case No. 4/2015.

The brief facts of the instant case is the respondent no.3 herein had instituted a title suit being registered as Title (partition) Suit No. 20/2011 before the Court of the Civil Judge at Dibrugarh seeking partition, recovery of Khas possession of the plaintiff share etc. The petitioner herein is the defendant No. 6 in the said suit.

The respondent no. 1 herein had also filed another suit being Title Suit no. 107/2011, whereby the respondent no. 1 as plaintiff sought for declaration of his right, title and interest over a plot of land described in Schedule A to the plaint for declaration that the defendant no. 1 got the sale deed nos. 1791 & 1792 executed forcefully for declaration that the sale deed 1791 and 1792 is forged illegal and liable to be cancelled; for declaration that the defendant has got no right, title and interest on the basis of the sale deed 1791 & 1792 and for permanent injunction. The said suit was filed before the Court of the Munsiff No. 1 at Dibrugarh and registered as Title Suit no. 107/2011. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit.

The petitioner being the defendant in both the suits filed an application under Section 24 before the Court of District Judge at Dibrugarh for transferring both the suits to one Court on the ground that if both the suits are decided by two separate Courts, it may result in conflicting decisions. The said application filed have been registered as Misc (T) Case no. 4/2015. The Court of the District Judge Dibrugarh by the judgment dated 7.10.2016 rejected the said application on the ground of dissimilarity with the schedule properties mentioned in the schedules Page No.# 3/4

and it is against the said order that the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. I have perused the plaint in Title Suit Partition no. 20/2011 which is pending disposal before the Court of the Civil Judge at Dibrugarh. The said suit has been valued at Rs. 20,96,250/-. On the other hand, the plaint in Title Suit no. 107/2011 which is pending in the Court of the Munsiff No.1 wherein, suit has been valued at Rs. 1,58,100/-. Consequently, the pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of both the suits in terms of the Bengal Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 would be different in as much as Title Suit (Partition) No. 20/2011 has to be adjudicated by the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh whereas the Title Suit No. 107/2011 has to be adjudicated by the Court of the Munsiff No. 1 Dibrugarh more so in terms with Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Apart from that, the petitioner is the defendant in both the suits who has made a request for transfer of the suits to one Court on the ground that it may result in conflicting decisions, which in my opinion cannot be done by a defendant in as much as the plaintiff in the domites litis. Had the petitioner been a plaintiff in any of the suits, the circumstances would have been different. Moreover, the issues which are required to be taken up for consideration in both the suits are different. Under such circumstances, the Court below was justified in rejecting the said application for transferring the suits to one Court. Accordingly the instant petition stands dismissed.

Page No.# 4/4

Interim order passed on 05.04.2017 stands vacated and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 18.01.2022. Registry is directed to intimate a copy of this order to both the Courts below within a period of 15 days.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant