1. This application is directed against the order of the District Judge of Patna, dated the 2nd June 1927, refusing a prayer of the petitioner to transfer the suit instituted by the petitioner, being No. 294 of 1927, from the first Court of the Subordinate Judge of Patna to that of the Additional Subordinate Judge of the same place. In the latter Court the defendant instituted a suit, No. 12/14 of 1926, on the 27th January 1926, for recovery of rent based upon a sarkhatnama dated the 20th October 1920. The petitioner who was defendant in that case filed written statement giving history of the transactions between the parties leading up to the execution of the sarkhatnama dated the 20th October 1920, and the execution of several other documents. It is pleaded that the case is one of account between the parties, the petitioner claiming a much larger sum as due from the opposite party on proper accounts being taken. He also stated in the written statement that he would bring a separate suit which he has now done being suit No. 294 of 1927. In the suit of the opposite patty, issue 3 was raised with respect to the account claimed by the petitioner in the following words:
Whether the defendant can claim any set off without paying Court-fee.
2. In suit No. 294 the petitioner has paid the Court-fee and if the Court-fee paid is not sufficient, the proper Court-fee will have to be paid by him in order to prosecute the suit further.
3. Issue 3 will thus resolve itself into an issue relating to an account between the parties which is the claim made by the petitioner in his own suit. The petitioner's case is that the opposite party was, in virtue of the mutual arrangements between the parties, set forth in different transactions of mortgage-bonds, etc., described in the petitioner's plaint, in possession of the shop belonging to the petitioner.
4. In order to dispose of the principal controversies between the parties it is desirable that the two cases should be tried together. The facts of the present litigation between the parties giving rise to the aforesaid two suits are similar, though not the same, to the case of Soroj Bashini Debi v. Girija Proshad(1), where it was held that it would be convenient to both parties to have the suits tried together. I am of the same view and accordingly I would direct that suit No. 294 of 1927, pending in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge and Suit No. 12/14 of 1926, pending in the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court be tried together. The former suit has not advanced much and the latter suit has approached the stage of actual hearing. The opposite party, the defendant in the former suit, has undertaken to file the written statement as early as possible. He further says that he will be ready with the case within a month. The petitioner says that he is already ready in both the cases. The nature of the dispute between the parties shows that there will not be any elaborate evidence. The two suits will thus be disposed of in a short time if they are amalgamated. The suit before the Additional Subordinate Judge has matured itself and consequently the suit, No. 294 of 1927, will be transferred to his Court as desired by the parties. There will be no costs of the hearing of this application. Each party will bear its own costs.
5. The above order is well within the power of this Court. The point has been discussed in the case quoted above. There, a preliminary objection was taken that the District Judge having refused to act under Section 24 of the CPC, the High Court was not competent to deal with the same question. In the case of Hari Nath v. Debendra Nath(2) it was held that even though the District Judge had refused to exercise the power vested in him by law under Section 24 of the CPC, the High Court had jurisdiction to act under that section. Besides, the High Court has the general power of superintendence over all inferior Courts and this power is not limited by any course taken by the District Judge.
6. The Subordinate Judge will expedite the hearing of the case and the parties estimate that it will not take more than two months to finish the two cases. As both parties have spontaneously undertaken to expedite the hearing of the suits and as they said that they expected that the cases would be finished in a month there is a no reason why any of the parties should be given any indulgence by the Court below in the matter of adjournments.
7. Order accordingly.