D. Murugesan, J.@mdashThe Original Side Appeal arises out of an order dated 23.2.2011 made in Application No. 3948 of 2001 in C.S. No. 441 of 1999. That Application was taken out by M/s International Industry Equipment Limited, Anguilla ,viz., the Plaintiff in the Suit seeking for permission to the said Applicant to sell the second hand Blast Furnace more fully described in the schedule.
2. The short facts are necessarily to be stated for disposal of his Original Side Appeal. The parties are referred as shown in the Suit.
3. We have heard Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th Defendant viz., the Appellant.
4. The Plaintiff purchased a second hand Blast Furnace Plant from the 1st Defendant. There was a dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. Hence, the Plaintiff filed a Suit before this Court for the following relief:
(a) Judgment and decree and mandatory injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, men, servants or representatives from clerking or taking possession of the goods comprising second-hand Blast Furnace Plant weighing 2,472,982 Kgs. consigned in terms of Bill of Lading dated 29th January 1999 and stored in warehouse MACKWT Chennai Port and lying in the port, without the payment of the full sale consideration and other amounts due and payable of the full sale consideration and other amounts due and payable by the First Defendants to the Plaintiff;
(b) cost of the Suit; and
(c) for such further relief or reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.
And the Suit was valued for a sum of Rs. 10,01,000/-. On the ground that the 5th Defendant had offered two cranes to lift that Furnace valuing 4,25,000 Pound Sterling, as could be seen from the communication dated 13.11.1997 and also invested further 1,15,000 Pounds Sterling, as could be seen from the communication dated 15.11.1997, took out an Application to implead the 5th Defendant as a party to the Suit.
5. In the Application No. 3948 of 2001 filed by the Plaintiff seeking for permission to the Plaintiff to sell the second hand Blast Furnace, the 5th Defendant has not been impleaded as a party. Nevertheless, the 5th Defendant also appeared and opposed the said Application. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, after considering some of the offers made before the Court, ultimately accepted the offer of one Jasleen Enterprises represented by Mr. Rambeer Singh Gandhi for a sum of Rs. 4.00 crores. With that acceptance, the learned Judge directed the sale to be affected and the report of compliance should be made to the Court on 6.4.2011.
6. This order is questioned primarily on two grounds. According to Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th Defendant, viz., the Appellant, though on the date when the Suit was filed, considering the valuation of the Suit, it could have been entertained, but, in view of the subsequent development viz., the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and the Chennai City Civil Court, the Suits shall stand automatically transferred to the Principal Judge of the Chennai City Civil Court. He would specifically rely upon the amended provisions of Section 4(2), which reads as follows:
4(2) All Suits pending before an Additional Judge or a Principal Judge or in the High Court on the date of the commencement of this Act and which would be within the cognizance of the Chennai City Civil Court under the provisions of the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 (Central Act 7 of 1892), as amended by this Act, shall stand transferred to the Assistant Judge, Additional Judge or the Principal Judge having jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Which came into force on 27.5.2010, on which date it was notified. Consequently, even on merits, the impugned order directing the sale of the furnace cannot be ordered in a Suit for bare mandatory injunction and the relief of sale could be outside the scope of the Suit.
7. As against the said submission, we have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff viz., the 1st Respondent in the Original Side Appeal and Mr. S. Udayakumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.
8. In our opinion, the justifiability of the order challenged in this Appeal need not be gone into in view of the fact that on and after the notified date of Act 19 of 2010, viz., 27.5.2010, all Suits pending before the High Court on the date of commencement of the Act and which would be within the cognizance of Chennai City Civil Court under the provisions of the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 shall stand transferred to the Principal Judge of Chennai City Civil Court in view of valuation of the Suit. In that event, this Court could not have jurisdiction to even consider the Application and pass orders thereon. On the said ground alone the order questioned in this Appeal is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. The Original Side Appeal is allowed. The entire Suit shall stand automatically transferred to the Principal Judge, Chennai City Civil Court. The parties are at liberty to work out their remedies before that Court, if they are so advised by filing appropriate Application. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
