IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1221 of 2006 SMT.URMILA DEVI Versus BINOD SINHA & ORS ----------- 2 18.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the District Judge, Vaishali whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for analogous hearing of Title Suit No. 27 of 2003, pending in the Court of Munsif-I, Hazipur along with Title Suit No. 39 of 2005, pending in the Court of Sub- Judge-VIII, Hazipur by way of transfer of both the suits to one of the same Court in exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subject matter of both the suits revolves around the sale deed dated 17.11.1998 and as such the interest of justice could have been better served if both the suits were heard and disposed of by the same Court so as to rule out any possibility of conflicting judgments. This Court would find that the prayer of the petitioner is not as innocent as has been advanced by her counsel. Title Suit No. 27 of - 2 - 2003 has been actually filed by Binod Sinha, opposite party No.1 of this case for setting aside a sale deed dated 3.1.2003 executed by one Shakuntala Devi in favour of Urmila Devi (petitioner) by basing a claim through his sale deed dated 17.11.1998. In the said Title Suit No. 27 of 2003 which is pending in the Court of Munsif-I, Hazipur the main contesting defendant is the petitioner. It appears that after service of notice the petitioner along with one Manvendra Kumar has filed Title Suit No. 39 of 2005 for seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 17.11.1998 executed in favour of Binod Sinha, opposite party No.1 by one Manish Kumar is illegal and this suit was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge which is pending before Sub- Judge-VIII, Vaishali. As a matter of fact, after filing of the suit, Title Suit No. 39 of 2005, the petitioner had immediately filed an application under Section 24 C.P.C. seeking actually transfer of Title Suit No. 27 of 2003 from the Court of Munsif-I to the Court of Sub-Judge-VIII where the title Suit No. 39 of 2005 was pending in the garb of analogous hearing of the aforesaid - 3 - two suits. Such prayer after detailed consideration, has been rejected by the District Judge who in the impugned order has held that “It appears that the subject matter of both the two suits are two different sale deeds. Parties are different and therefore, I find that there is no chance of delivering any conflicting judgment in the aforesaid two suits and the prime object of heraring the suits analogously in to avoid delivering conflicting judgments in the two suits. Therefore, I find that the petition filed by the petitioners to hear the two suits analogously has got no merit”. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid view taken by the District Judge can have no exception either on fact or in law and learned counsel for the petitioner in fact also could not also satisfactorily assail any of the aforementioned finding recorded by the District Judge. - 4 - It would thus be clear that the petitioner had deliberately tried to create an impediment in expeditious disposal of Title Suit No. 27 of 2003 pending before the Court of Munsif-I where the hearing of the aforementioned suit had proceeded to an advanced stage after completion of the pleadings. The very fact that the petitioner immediately after filing of the suit, Title Suit No. 39 of 2005 had made an attempt to get the Title Suit No. 27 of 2003 transferred from the Court of Munsif-I in the name of analogous hearing with Title Suit No. 39 of 2005, would itself demonstrate that the petitioner had intended to abuse the process of the Court by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 24 C.P.C. Such concealed and clever approach of a litigant like the petitioner must be dealt with firm hands in order to protect the faith of common litigant in the judicial system. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner with a very calculated and - 5 - shrewd motive had sought transfer of the suit pending against her before the Court of Munsif-I in the name of analogous hearing with the suit filed by her in the Court of Sub-Judge. Such dubious design of the petitioner has been rightly nipped in bud by the District Judge and the impugned order passed by him does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 115 C.P.C. That being so, this Court would dismiss this Civil Revision application with a cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the aforesaid Binod Sinha, opposite party No.1 of this case within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)