Sathiya Rekha vs R.Sudhakaran
2024 Latest Caselaw 11146 Mad

Madras High Court

Sathiya Rekha vs R.Sudhakaran on 1 July, 2024

                                                                                       C.R.P.No.3113 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED :    01.07.2024

                                                            CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                                 C.R.P.No.3113 of 2023
                                               and C.M.P.No.19278 of 2023

                Sathiya Rekha                                                    ...    Petitioner
                                                     -Vs-

                1.R.Sudhakaran
                2.R.Perumal                                                      ...    Respondents

                Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
                aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.03.2023 made in Transfer O.P.No.345 of
                2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur.


                                  For Petitioner     :       Mr.G.Muniratnam

                                  For Respondents    :       Mr.B.Vignesh
                                                             for Mr.E.Prabu

                                                         ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.345

of 2022 by the learned Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur.

2. Two suits have been presented for recovery of money by the first

respondent. O.S.No.123 of 2019 is a suit which has been presented before the

Principal District Court at Tiruvallur alleging that the defendant therein one

R.Perumal had not honoured the cheques bearing Nos.136168, 143308, 143317 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

143307. The suit has been presented for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,95,140/-

together with interest. For the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- given under

cheque No.161884 by one Sathiya Rekha, who is the wife of Perumal, another suit

was presented by the first respondent in O.S.No.114 of 2019 on the file of the

Subordinate Judge at Ponneri.

3. The Civil Revision Petitioner is not a party to O.S.No.123 of 2019. Alleging

that both the suits are based on goods sold and delivered and the cheques were

issued in the same period of transaction, she presented Tr.O.P.No.345 of 2022.

The learned Principal District Judge, who went into this issue, found that the cause

of action for the first suit viz., O.S.No.123 of 2019 is based on different cheques

from the one in O.S.No.114 of 2019. She held that the mere fact that the husband

and wife are parties in the respective suits does not mean that the suits must be

clubbed together and tried by the same Court. The learned Judge has exercised

her discretion and has decided not to transfer the suits. Challenging the same, the

present revision is before me.

4. Heard Mr.G.Muniratnam for the petitioner and Mr.B.Vignesh for Mr.E.Prabu

for the respondents.

5. Mr.Muniratnam would submit that both the cheques relate to the same

transaction. The cause of action is the same. It is only the parties that are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

different. Mr.Vignesh would submit that the cheques in the two suits are different

and accordingly the cause of action is also different. He draws my attention to the

documents filed in support of the plaint in order to substantiate the same.

6. I find that the first suit viz., O.S.No.123 of 2019 is based on the cheques

issued by the husband and O.S.No.114 of 2019 is based on the cheques issued by

the wife. The cause of action for both the suits is that the respective parties have

issued the cheques, but have not honoured the same. The cause of action are

different and as rightly pointed out by the learned Principal District Judge, for the

mere fact that the defendants are related to each other does not mean that the

suits have to be clubbed together.

7. Unless and until the reasons that are given by the learned Principal District

Judge are capricious or arbitrary or perverse, it is not susceptible to be revised in

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find

the order suffering from any of the aforesaid infirmities. The Civil Revision Petition

stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also

dismissed.

8. The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur as well as the learned

Subordinate Judge at Ponneri are requested to take note that the money suits are

pending for the past five years. The learned Judges shall expedite the proceedings

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

in the suits and ensure that the judgments are delivered at the earliest, not more

than five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

01.07.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

KST

To

1.The Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur.

2.The Subordinate Judge Ponneri.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

KST

01.07.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis