Raghubir Dash, J.@mdashThis is a petition u/s 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transfer of Civil Suit No. 136 of 2009 from the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore. The petitioner is the Ex-Vice Chancellor of Fakir Mohan University. Now he is residing in Bhubaneswar. O.P. No. 2 was a Professor in Environmental Science in the same University. O.P. No. 1 is the wife of O.P. No. 2. During the incumbency of the petitioner as Vice Chancellor of the University, O.P. No. 2 faced an enquiry and on the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee, the petitioner submitted a report before the Syndicate and on that basis the University wrote a letter to the State Government not to extend the lien of O.P. No. 2 beyond 10.5.2007. Against that O.P. No. 2 filed a writ petition before this Court wherein order was passed directing the University to take a fresh decision according to the statute. After the order of this Court, the Syndicate on the recommendation of the petitioner terminated the service of O.P. No. 2 on the ground that his service was no longer required by the University. O.P. No. 2 again approached this Court challenging the said termination order which was ultimately set aside by this Court with a direction to the University to give sufficient opportunity of hearing to O.P. No. 2 on the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to O.P. No. 2 by the University and ultimately O.P. No. 2 was directed to join in his service.
2. On the aforesaid cause of action, O.P. No. 2 has filed a suit (C.S. No. 15 of 2009-III) before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs alleging that on the false and baseless allegation made by the petitioner, he suffered mental pain besides loss of reputation and other set backs in his career. The same suit is still pending in the Court at Balasore.
On the self-same cause of action O.P. No. 1, wife of O.P. No. 2 has filed another suit (C.S. No. 136 of 2009) in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs alleging that on account of the unfounded and malicious allegations made against her husband, she and other members of her family have suffered humiliation.
3. The petitioner wants transfer of the suit pending in the Court at Bhubaneswar to the Court at Balasore on the ground that both the cases having arisen out of the same cause of action, there would be identical issues involved in both the suits and if both the cases are tried in one Court then it would be convenient not only to the petitioner but also to the O.Ps., particularly, in the matter of production of documents as well as witnesses in the Court at Balasore. It is claimed that all the documents relevant for the purpose of the suit and most of the witnesses required to be examined are available at Balasore and if the suit in Bhubaneswar Court is not transferred, then the parties have to carry voluminous documents and number of witnesses from Balasore to Bhubaneswar.
4. The O.Ps. have filed counter wherein they have denied that identical questions are involved in both the suits and that voluminous documents and numerous witnesses are required to be carried to Bhubaneswar. So far as the documents are concerned, it is stated in the counter that since copies of the documents are available, it is not necessary to cause production of the original documents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in
6. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is more appropriate for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition. Copies of the plaints in both the suits have been annexed to the transfer petition. On perusal of the same, it transpires that both the suits involved almost identical questions of facts and law. It also transpires that both the suits arise out of same cause of action. There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is highly doubtful as to whether the suit filed by the wife on the same cause of action for which the husband has filed a suit is maintainable. It is true that if the suit in the Court at Bhubaneswar is not transferred to the Court at Balasore then the parties will be required to carry required official documents from Balasore to Bhubaneswar and most of the witnesses are also likely to be taken from Balasore to Bhubaneswar. Under such circumstances, the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit pending in the Court at Bhubaneswar.
7. Accordingly, the TRP(C) is allowed. Civil Suit No. 136 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar is transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore. On production of a certified copy of this order before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, the case record of the said suit shall be transmitted forthwith to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore. Since, it has come to the notice of this Court that apparently on the same cause of action one suit is filed by the husband and another by the wife alleging that due to false and baseless allegations made by the petitioner the husband (also his wife and other family members) suffered mental pain and humiliation, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore on receipt of the transferred case record shall do well to suo motu take up the question as to whether the wife has the locus standi to file a separate suit against the petitioner-defendant and whether her separate suit is maintainable or not, keeping in mind the provisions contained in Order 1, Rules 2 and 3 of C.P.C. While doing so he shall give full opportunity to the parties to be heard on the matter and adjudicate the same within a period of three months from the date both the parties and/or their counsels enter appearance before him.
With the aforesaid observation, the TRP(C) is disposed of.
