JUDGMENT
M. Papanna, J.
1. Seeking transfer of Title Suit No. 173 of 1996 from the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack, motion has been made invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The National Trading Corporation (for short ‘the firm’) is the Plaintiff, the United Commercial Bank (for short ‘The Bank’) is defendant No. 1 and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short ‘the Company’) is defendant No. 2 in the suit, Defendant No. 1 in the suit is the petitioner, Plaintiff is opposite party No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is opposite party No. 2 in the present M.J.C.
3. Title suit No. 16 of 1993 brought by the Bank (present petitioner) before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak for a decree of Rs. 26.28 lakhs against opposite party No. 1 – firm and his partners is now subjudice in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack, vide C. T. No. 193 of 2001 after transfer. The petitioner has pleaded further that Title suit No. 173 of 1996 brought by opposite party No. 1 – firm as Plaintiff against him as defendant No. 1 and the Company as defendant No. 2 for a decree of Rs. 5,00,000/-is now subjudice before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak. It is contended by the Petitioner that the subject matter of the dispute in both the aforesaid matters and the facts in issue involved therein being directly and substantially similar in nature between the same parties, who place reliance on the same documents, they should be adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack to meet the ends of justice and equity. On the averments, as aforesaid, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of Title suit No, 173 of 1996 from the Court of the learned CivilJudge (Senior Division), Bhadrak to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack for adjudication in accordance with law.
4. The National Trading Corporation-firm (opposite party No. 1) has objected with vehemence to the transfer of Title Suit No. 173 of 1996 from the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack on the ground that the issues involved in both the suits are not similar in nature nor the parties to the suits are the same. That apart, facts of both the suits besides being different, prayer made by the Plaintiffs in the respective suits differ totally from each other. Above all, the causes of actions giving rise to filing of the suits being different, the motion made for transfer of Title Suit No. 173 of 1996 is liable to be rejected.
5. The petition for transfer of T.S. No. 173/96 from the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack, needs careful examination mostly on the question of law of which the first one being, if in view of the facts and circumstances of the case Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure can at aff be invoked for its adjudication. Let relevant provisions of Section 24(1)(a) be quoted as below :
“24(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." 6. The next question that poses before this Court is, if the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack, is subordinate to High Court and competent to try or dispose of the suit in question on transfer. A bare reading of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it manifestly clear that in order that a transfer may be directed, it is necessary : (i) That the suit or proceeding must be pending before the Court from which it is to be transferred; (ii) That the Court to which it is to be transferred is one competent to try it; and (iii) That the Court to which it is to be transferred is subordinate to the High Court or the District Court which orders the transfer.
7. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that condition No. (i) is satisfied in the sense that the suit is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak for trial or disposal but not conditions No. (ii) and (iii) because, as contemplated under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’), the amount of debt due to the plaintiff who is not a financial institution as per Section 2(h)(i) of the Act is not Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) or more for which the said Tribunal is not competent to try the suit and above all the said Tribunal to which the suit is proposed to be transferred is not subordinate Jo the High Court or the District Court as contemplated under Section 24 of the C.P.C.
8. The petitioner moved this Court by filing the above petition seeking transfer of the suit on the ground that T.S. No. 16/93 brought by him before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak, for a decree of Rs. 26,28 lakhs against opposite party No. 1 – firm and his partners is now on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack, Vide C. T. No. 193/2001 after transfer and that being so in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties and in order to simultaneously entertain and adjudicate upon two parallel litigations between the parties there should be transfer of the suit in question. Here I would like to refer to AIR 1987 Orissa 45 (Pitambar Padhi and Anr., v. Smt. Santilata Padhi and others) wherein Dr. B. N. Misra, Judge of this Court (as he then was) took a view that where both the suits involved the same parties and questions to be decided were substantially the same, it was in the interest of justice that both the suits should be tried at same place and by the same Judge. His Lordships while taking this view had relied on AIR 1953 Orissa 46 (Puma Chandra Mohanty v. Samanta Radha Prasana Das). But in the case at hand, the suit is against the Insurance company from whom a decree for Rs. 5, lakhs is sought for but the Bank who is defendant No. 1 in the suit seeks transfer of the suit.
9. Moreover, the suit filed by the Financial Institution can alone be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal but not the private individual or concerns like that of the National Trading Corporation represented by its partners. As per the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no doubt these two parallel litigations should have been entertained and adjudicated upon simultaneously had the suit in question been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack, but for the reasons recorded above and particularly when the subject matter of the dispute, the causes of actions giving rise to the filing of the above suits and the relief sought for having been not similar and above ail conditions No. (ii) and (iii) as contemplated under Section 24 C.P.C. having been not satisfied, it is not a fit case where the suit in question which is now at the verge of closure cannot be transferred from the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack. On this point, law is well settled that a part-heard case cannot be transferred to any other Judge unless the Judge himself indicates to that effect as ruled in 1989 (31) OJD 43 (Civil), S.N.M. Abdi v. J. B. Patnaik and 3 others, Reliance has been placed on (2000) 7, Supreme Court Cases 357, United Bank of India, Calcutta v. Abhijit T. Co. Pvt. Ltd, and Ors.,by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, but in view of non-fulfilment of Conditions (ii) and (iii) as per Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and particularly when the plaintiff in the suit is not a financial institution as contemplated under Section 2(h)(i) of the Act, I am very slow in directing the suit to be transferred as sought for by the petitioner.
10. In the ultimate result, the prayer for transfer of the Title Suit No. 173 of 1996 being not entertainabfe for the reasons recorded above, the M.J.C. which is devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there has been no order as to costs.