- (1.)D. K. Seth, J. This is an application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Proce dure (hereinafter called as the Code) for transfer of three suits pending before three different courts to one court. In effect, this appears to be an application for consolida tion of three cases or in other words simul taneous hearing of all the cases.
(2.)IN order to appreciate the situa tion, it is necessary to refer to certain facts as hereinafter.
Suit No. 246 of 1974 was instituted before the learned Munsif, Budaun by Syed Aley Navi, and Room Singh as plain tiffs against Shri Ram Bhasin, Shri Ajab Lal and Shri Kuvarn Husain as defen dants. The said suit was pending before the II Additional Munsif, Budaun. In the said suit an injunction was prayed for restraining defendants from creating any obstruction in the possession of the plain tiffs in the suit property and from remov ing any construction therefrom. The suit property was described as the portion in red in the attached plan or map marked I, J, K and L. The other suit being SCC Suit No. 4 of 1986 was pending before the SCC Court presided over by the learned Civil Judge, Budaun. The said suit was filed by Room Singh, Shri Hakim Husain, Smt. Avrok, Smt. Feroz and Shri Aley Navi as plaintiffs against Rakesh Bhasin, Suresh Bhasin, Smt. Ram Sanehi, Jagdish Kumar and Abhay Lal as defendants. In this suit, prayers for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for illegal occupation were made. The suit property as described seems to differ from the suit property of suit No. 1246 of 1974. The third suit has been filed by Rakesh Bhasin, Smt. Ram Sanehi and Jagdish Kumar as plaintiffs against the Union of India, the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and the Custodian Enemy Property. The said suit being suit No. 4 of 1986 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Badaun is for mandatory injunc tion directing the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit property described as House No. E/10/70 which appears to be different from the suit property involved in other two suits.

In the counter-affidavit a com parative chart has been appended point ing out the difference in respect of the suit property, parties and reliefs claimed in the said three suits. A perusal thereof clearly indicates that the suit properties are not the same or identical. The reliefs sought for are altogether different. The parties are also not same. It has been mentioned that the hearing of the suit No. 246 of 1974 is over and the judgment has since been reserved. This fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also not disputed the chart appended to the counter-affidavit. No rejoinder af fidavit appears to have been filed against the counter-affidavit. Learned Counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, con tends that the suit property being same and the issues involved being common, all the suits should be transferred to the one and the same court. However, he has fairly concedes that an application under Sec tion 24 of the Code and filed for such purpose before the learned District Judge who by an order dated 8-4-1993 dismissed the said application for transfer but he has not challenged the said order, instead he has filed fresh application before this court.

(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, contends that apart from the merit of the case, the ap plication for transfer having been dis missed by a reasoned order by the learned District Judge, the applicant should have challenged the said order of rejection of the earlier application under Section 24 of the Code by the learned District Judge, the present application under Section 24 of the Code is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable. He also contends that the SCC suit cannot be transferred to any court which do not have the power of Small Causes Court.
After having heard learned Coun sel for the parties, it appears that the ap plicant had made a similar application under Section 24 of the Code before the learned District Judge. The same was registered as Misc. Case No. 26 of 1993 and was disposed of on 8-4-1993 by dis missing the application for transfer. A copy of the said order is Annexure-8 to the present application. Admittedly, the said order is not appealable.