1 1115.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 1115 OF 2011 Nashik District Madhadi & Unprotected Labour Board, Lasalgaon and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. The Lasalgaon Merchants Association Ltd, Lasalgaon and others. ... Respondents. A.V.Bukhari i/b. B.V.Bukhari for the petitioners. Rahul Totala i/b. Rameshwar Totala for respondent No.1. Tushar Sonawane for respondent No.256. P.N.Joshi for respondent No.258. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 17th August 2011. P.C. : Heard. 2. Rule. 3. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2 1115.11-wp 4. This petition is filed by the petitioners/ original defendants (Mathadi Board) for transfer of different suits presented by the number of traders in different courts in one court. An application being Civil Misc. Application No.78/2010 was moved by the petitioners seeking transfer of eight suits presented in different courts in Nashik district for disposal to one court. It is not disputed that different traders have presented in all eight suits claiming common relief. It is also not disputed that in all the suits the challenge is raised to the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 12th November 2008 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. According to the plaintiffs- traders, the government resolution is contrary to the provisions of law and the scheme framed for the benefit of the Mathadi workers. It also appears that the traders have also prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Mathadi Board and the Collector from enforcing recovery or taking any action based on the directives contained in G.R. dated 12th November 2008. It is the contention of the petitioner- Mathadi Board, who is common defendant in all the suits, that there is a common question of law and fact raised in all the eight suits presented in different courts. It is contended that with a view to avoid conflicting decisions by different courts while dealing with the matters, it is desirable that all the suits shall be dealt with by one court. The trial Court, however, considering the contentions raised by the petitioners and after hearing arguments of the traders and other respondents proceeded to reject the application. 5. I heard the arguments advanced by by the respective counsel of the parties and perused record. 6. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the 3 1115.11-wp High Court or the District Court to effect transfer of suits, appeals or other proceedings. Section 24 is quoted as below: “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.-- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section.-- (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; 4 1115.11-wp (b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.] (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.] 7. On considering the contentions raised by the parties and on perusal of the plaint, copy of which is annexed along with the petition, I am convinced that there is common question of law and fact raised in all the suits. It is not disputed that in all the suits presented in different Courts, challenge is to the G.R.dated 12th November 2008. Consequent relief based on the decision on the issue of legality or permissibility of the government resolution is also claimed in the suit. 8. Shri Totla, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents has brought to my notice that there are five suits presented in the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Niphad being R.C.S.Nos. 41/2010; 43/2010; 47/2010; 58/2010; and 60/2010. There are two suits presented in the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Malegaon being R.C.S.Nos.98/2010 and 105/2010 and one suit being R.C.S.No. 221/2010 is presented in the court of Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Nashik. Shri Totla further submits that in spite of service of notice indicating that the petition would be disposed of finally at the stage of admission, the plaintiffs in the suits presented in the courts of Malegaon and 5 1115.11-wp Nashik chose not to appear before this Court. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that all the suits, wherein common question of law and facts relating to the legality and permissibility of issue of G.R. dated 12th November 2008 is raised, can be conveniently disposed of by one court. Considering the fact that five suits are presented and pending in the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Niphad, it would be convenient to transfer the remaining three suits presented in the Malegaon and Nashik courts to the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Niphad for disposal in accordance with the provisions of law. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 30th November 2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nashik in Civil Misc.Application No.78/2010 is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the suits presented and pending in the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Malegaon being R.C.S.Nos.98/2010 and 105/2010 and the suit presented and pending on the file of Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Nashik being R.C.S.No.221/2010 shall be transferred to the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Niphad for disposal in accordance with law along with other five suits pending in the said court. The Civil Judge, Niphad is directed to dispose of all the eight suits in accordance with the provisions of law. 11. Shri Totala, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in five suits filed in the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Niphad takes notice of this order. Mr.Bukhari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- 6 1115.11-wp Mathadi Board; Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for A.P.M.C,, Lasalgaon and Mr.Sonawane, learned counsel appearing for A.P.M.C., Pimpalgaon take notice of transfer of suits. As such, no separate communication of transfer of suits is necessary. The parties to the litigation in the suits presented in the courts of Malegaon and Nashik shall be intimated regarding the transfer of suits within four weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE, J.)