1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Transfer) No.295 of 2010 (Punjabrao Sitaram Kathole v. Ramdas Supade Gawai and another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.S. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant. Coram : K.U. Chandiwal, J. Dated : 21 st June, 2010 1. Heard. 2. The applicant filed Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2008 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana, seeking specific performance of contract and claiming that he was in possession of the property. The contention was rejected. Consequently, the applicant approached this Court in Appeal against Order No.40 of 2009. The appeal is admitted and due for hearing. 3. Respondent No.2 Gulabrao Pujaji Kathole filed Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikhli, for perpetual injunction restraining the present 2 applicant from interfering with the possession in the suit property. In the said proceedings, respondent No.2 stated that he has purchased the suit property from respondent No.1 Ramdas Supada Gawai and, therefore, he was in possession. In those proceedings (Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 2008), there was an injunction by order dated 29-11-2008. The matter was taken by the present applicant before the learned 3 rd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Buldana, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.64 of 2008, which is pending. 4. The applicant now desires that the appeal pending before the learned 3 rd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Buldana (Misc. Civil Appeal No.64 of 2008) may be heard together by clubbing with Appeal against Order No.40 of 2009, which is pending before this Court. 5. The contentions and the reasons assigned for such exercise, in appeal, could not be done. Against any order, which could be passed in the pending Misc. Civil Appeal, the remedy to the parties is to approach this Court and if such appeal is transferred to this Court, the remedy of appeal will be certainly taken away, which is not expected to be done. If the parties and particularly the applicant feels so convenient, the remedy to club the original suits together is not withheld. 3 6. With the above observations, I do not find that the application moved for transfer of the appeal from the file of District Court, Buldana, to this Court is a correct exercise in the eyes of law. 7. The judgment of Madras High Court in the matter of M/s. Engineer Investments P. Ltd. v. M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Madras and another, reported at AIR 1983 Madras 1, in the light of the foregoing discussion, is not applicable to the present case. 8. The Misc. Civil Application stands rejected. No costs. (K.U. Chandiwal), Judge. pdl.