HARAKCHAND RAVJI SHAH AND OTHERSversusCHANDRAKANT KANTILAL BOTADKAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AS:35001



                    Diksha Rane                                           MCA 84-25.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 84/2025

                    HARAKCHAND RAVJI SHAH AND OTHERS                      ..APPLICANTS

                                  VS

                    CHANDRAKANT KANTILAL BOTADKAR & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

                                                          WITH

                                        MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 455/2025

                    URMILA PRAVIN MORABIA                                 ..APPLICANT

                                  VS

                    CHANDRAKANT K BOTADKAR                    ..RESPONDENT
                                             ------------
                    Mr. Chirag Mody a/w Ms. Sonal Awasthi a/w Ronish Mehta a/w
                    Ishvendra Tiwari i/by Vinod Mistry and Co. for Applicants.


                    Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate a/w Swati Narvekar a/w
                    Sudarshan Bhilare a/w Rushikesh G. Bhagat for Respondents.
                                                      ------------

                                            CORAM     :        RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

                                       RESERVED ON    :        11 FEBRUARY 2026

                                  PRONOUNCED ON       :        25 AUGUST 2026




                                                           1
Diksha Rane                                            MCA 84-25.doc




JUDGMENT :

1)            By the present transfer application, filed u/s. 24 of the Code

of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) the applicants are seeking

transfer of eight eviction suits filed by the respondent no.1 to 3, as

landlords in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, to be transferred to

the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay and to be tagged along with

applicants’ suit for specific performance pending before Bombay City

Civil Court.

FACTS

2)            The applicants herein on 12 August 2015 filed a suit for

specific      performance of MOU in this            Hon’ble            High Court.

Subsequently the defendants in the said suit claiming to be landlords

filed eight eviction suits against the applicants and other occupants of

the building before the Small Causes Court, at Bombay, in the month

of April 2022.

2.1)             Due to change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the

Bombay City Civil Court, the suit filed by the applicants before the

Bombay High Court were transferred in the year 2024 to the Bombay

City Civil Court. The issues have not been framed in the suit pending

before Bombay City Civil Court. Issues have been also framed in the


                                       2
Diksha Rane                                        MCA 84-25.doc




Small Causes Court suits. Thereafter, the present miscellaneous civil

applications u/s. 24 of the C.P.C. have been filed by the applicants

who are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for specific performance,

pending before the Bombay City Civil Court, at Bombay.

3)            On behalf of the applicants Mr. Chirag Mody appeared and

made his submissions.

3.1)            He submitted that there was a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) entered in the month of October 2002

between the present applicants along with respondent nos.4 to 21 on

One Side and the respondent nos.1 to 3 (landlords) on the Other

Side, pursuant to which the revisionary rights were to be sold and

tenancy rights were to be converted into Ownership rights. Part

consideration amount of Rs.3,20,000/- pursuant to the MOU was

paid to respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the outstanding amount of Rs.15

lakhs were to be paid after the respondent nos.1 to 3 complies with

the directions as stated in the MOU.

3.2)            As regards the premises no.7, the Deed of Conversion,

for ownership was entered into and the rights were transferred.

Hence, what was expected from the respondent nos.1 to 3-landlords,

like premises no.7, Deed of Conversion will also be entered into with


                                     3
Diksha Rane                                      MCA 84-25.doc




applicants.

3.3)          After entering into the MOU in the year 2002, the

respondent nos.1 to 3 stopped collecting rent from the applicants and

the other tenants/occupants of the building.

3.4)          All the expenses of the said building in which the

premises of the applicants and other tenants were situated after the

year 2002 are being paid from the bank account of the Association of

the applicants and the other members. Even the Municipal Taxes of

the building are paid by the said Association.

3.5)          Since the respondent nos. 1 to 3 – Landlords were not

cooperating and were not ready to comply with the clauses of the

MOU, the applicants had no option but to file suit for specific

performance in the Bombay High Court in the year 2015. The said

suit eventually was transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court, due to

the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil

Court, pursuant to the amendment to the Bombay City Civil Court

Act. After the said suit was transferred to the Bombay City Civil

Court, the Chamber Summons has been moved for transposing the

defendant nos. 4 to 25 as party plaintiff.

3.6)          In the meanwhile, the respondent nos.1 to 3 being the


                                    4
Diksha Rane                                                  MCA 84-25.doc




landlords of the suit building surreptitiously filed eight eviction suits

under         the    Maharashtra    Rent       control   Act,1999,           against   the

applicants/tenants on the ground of additions and alterations,

bonafide requirement and arrears of rent.

3.7)                The parties to the specific performance suit filed by the

applicants and the eviction suits filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 are

almost common. The evidence in eight suits filed for eviction before

the Small Causes Court and the suit for specific performance filed by

the applicants are almost common and the issues would also be

common. Further, in order to avoid conflicting judgments in the suit

pending before the Bombay City Civil Court for the specific

performance by the applicants and the eviction suits filed by the

respondent no.1 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, both the

suits need to be heard by the one and same judge. There will also be

duplicate of evidence being led and waste of time.

3.8)                Therefore, the eviction suits filed before the Small

Causes Court needs to be transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court

and be tagged along with the suit filed by the applicants and be

heard together.

3.9)                The provisions of Section 24 (4) of the Code of Civil


                                           5
Diksha Rane                                              MCA 84-25.doc




Procedure are quite clear that the suit of the Small Causes Court can

be transferred to the Civil Court, and the Civil Court will be treated

as a Court of Small Causes for that suit.

3.10)               He submitted that Section 8 of the Code of Civil

Procedure should be seen first and thereafter, Section 24. He

submitted that u/s. 8 there is a saviour clause, as far as Section 24 is

concerned. He further emphasizes the definition of the word “district”

u/s.2(4) of the C.P.C.

3.11)               He further referred to Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. He

submitted that u/s.24(4) once a suit is transferred to a Civil Court

under the said sub-section from a Court of Small Causes for the

purpose of such suit the said Court would be deemed to be a Court of

Small Causes.

3.12)               Therefore, the present Misc. Civil Application needs to be

allowed and the subsequent suits filed before Small Causes Court

needs to be transferred to Bombay City Civil Court.

3.13)               Mr. Mody also relied upon the following judgments to

support his contention:

              (a)   Ranchhodlal Vallabhdas Vs. Mahendrakumar Ambalal1;


1    1956 SCC OnLine Bom 40

                                          6
Diksha Rane                                                   MCA 84-25.doc




              (b) Balmukund Ratanlal Ladda Vs. Sitaram2;
              (c) Ulhas Harishchandra Dhargalkar Vs. Padmakar Vasant
              Desai &  anr.3;
              (d) Krishna Kumar Damani Vs. Ramnarain Agarwal4;
              (e)   M. Alwar Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.5;
              (f)   Maganlal Vijbhukandas Vs. The Bombay Co. Limited6;
              (g)   Vithoba Vs. Karim7;
              (h) Parshottamdas Chunilal Shah Vs. Bhagubhai Nathubhai
              (Division Bench)8;
              (i) Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Vs. Annama
              Philips9;
              (j)   Chitivalas Jute Mills Vs. Rewa Cement10;
              (k)   Bababhai Jamnadas Vs. Jaisingh Mariwala11;
              (l)   Ahim Mitter Vs. Kamal Kumar Chaudhary12;
              (m) Rahul Bothra Vs. Karjala Naidu13.

4.                  In response, learned senior counsel Mr.Khandeparkar

appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (landlords) and

made his submissions as under :

4.1                 He submitted that the wordings of Section 24 (1)(a) of

the Code of Civil Procedure needs to be taken into consideration. He

emphasizes on the word “competent” as mentioned in Section 24 (1)

2 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 486
3 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13813
4 1983 SCC OnLine Cal 158
5 2010(2) MWN (Civil) 500.
6 1904 [Vo.VII] Bombay Law Reporter 143.
7 AIR 1932 Nag 49.
8 1932 Vo. LVI Bombay Series 387.
9 2010(5) Mh.L.J.659 (Full Bench)
10 (2004) 3 SCC 85.
11 Order dtd.6/7/2015 in NML/472/2015 in Suit No.3734/1996.
12 2020 SCC Online Cal 331.
13 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 11

                                            7
Diksha Rane                                       MCA 84-25.doc




(a). He further submitted that therefore, before transferring a suit to

a particular Court that Court needs to be competent to try the suit.

4.2           He thereafter pointed out Section 33 of the Maharashtra

Rent Control Act, and submitted that the said Section 33 is to be

divided into three parts for the purpose of jurisdiction. Part – A

according to him, deals with suits filed which has jurisdiction for

Mumbai city. The second part deals with cities in which the Small

Causes Court are established under the Provisional Small Causes

Court Act and the third being the suit in the places where

Maharashtra Rent Control Act is applicable, and the matters are to be

dealt with by the Civil Judge Junior Division.

4.3           He laid emphasis on sub-section (2) of Section 33, which

does not mention about Section 33(1)(a) which deals with the suits

of eviction filed for the premises situated within the city of Greater

Mumbai. He therefore submitted that there is a difference between

the suits which are filed before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai,

where the properties are situated in Mumbai, and the rest of

Maharashtra.

4.4           He submitted that Section 24(4) will be applicable to

suits pertaining to Section 33(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control


                                   8
Diksha Rane                                         MCA 84-25.doc




Act, i.e. places where Provisional Small Causes Court Act is

applicable.

4.5           He further lays his emphasis on the preamble of the

Presidency Small Causes Court Act and compared the same with

preamble of the Provisional Small Causes Court Act.

4.6           He also referred to Section 5 of the Presidency Small

Causes Court Act and thereafter, compared the same with Section 5

of the Provisional Small Causes Court Act.

4.7           He referred to the judgment of learned Single Judge of

this Court in Rahul Bothra vs. Karjala Naidu, 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 11 . He

submitted that this judgment is referred to emphasis the point that

the prayer which can be granted by the Small Causes Court cannot be

granted by the Civil Court.

4.8           He therefore submitted that on the threshold the present

transfer application cannot be allowed as the jurisdiction of Small

Causes Court to decide the matters under the Rent Act cannot be

transferred to Civil Court to decide the said reliefs.

4.9           He submitted that one has to see Section 24 (1) (a)

which allows the transfer of any such suit, appeal or other proceeding

pending before the High Court or the District Court for trial or

                                    9
Diksha Rane                                         MCA 84-25.doc




disposal to any Court subordinate to it and “competent” to try and

dispose of the same. Therefore, according to him, though the power

of transfer is there, the Court to which the transfer is made should be

“competent” to try and dispose of the suit.

4.10          He further submitted that as per sub-section (b) of

Section 24(1), the High Court or the District Court has power to

withdraw any suit and try or dispose of the same itself. He submitted

that as per sub-section (ii) of Section 24(1)(b), the suit can be

transferred to any Court subordinate to the High Court and should be

“competent” to try. Further, considering Section 33 of the

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, sub-section (1)(c), which deals with

the jurisdiction of the Court, the Civil Judge Junior Division will have

jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit between landlord and tenant

for possession or recovery of the rent.

4.11          He submitted that by consent of the parties, the

jurisdiction would not lie to a particular Court.

4.12          He submitted that for instance, if a jurisdiction is

conferred on the Co-operative Court to decide particular kinds of

matter, it cannot be said that u/s. 24 such proceedings would be

transferred from the Co-operative Court to any Civil Court.


                                   10
Diksha Rane                                       MCA 84-25.doc




4.13          The jurisdiction of Court under the Maharashtra Rent

Control Act, is provided under Section 33 stating therein that if the

premises is in Mumbai, it would be the Court of Small Causes Court,

Mumbai under sub-section (a) and further the area in which the

Court of Small Causes Court shall be Provincial Small Causes Court

Act, sub-section (b) and elsewhere the Court of Civil Judge, Junior

Division, having jurisdiction in which the premises is situated as per

sub-section (c).

4.14          He submitted that u/s. 33 of the Maharashtra Rent

Control Act, the jurisdiction in the city of Greater Mumbai, to hear

the matter is granted to the Small Causes Court as per sub-section (a)

and as per sub-section (b) in the area where the Small Causes is

established under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and in sub-

section (b), in any area wherein the Court of Small Causes is

established under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act to such

Court, and elsewhere to the Civil Judge, Junior Division and if there

is no such Court available then to the Civil Judge, Senior Division.

Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 33 mentions that notwithstanding

anything contained in clause (b) of sub-section (1) the District Court,

may at any stage withdraw any suit pending in the Court of the Small

Causes established under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and

                                  11
Diksha Rane                                        MCA 84-25.doc




transfer the same to the Civil Judge, Senior Division.

4.15          Further sub-section (c) of sub-section (2) mentions that

such Civil Judge who hears the matter as per clause (a) which has

been transferred from the Court of Small Causes shall for such

purpose of suit would be deemed to be the Court of Small Causes.

4.16          Mr. Khandeparkar, to buttress his submissions relied

upon the following judgments.

              (a)    Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain Vs. Eknath Vithal
                     Ogale14;
              (b)    Narhari Kanda Vs. Heren Damji Gala15;
              (c)    Rahul Subhash Bothra Vs. Karjala Ashalata
                     Naidu16.


5.            ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:-

5.1           In the present application filed u/s. 24 and 151 of C.P.C.

transfer has been sought of eight eviction suits filed under

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, pending before Small Causes Court, to

be transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court, at Bombay and to be

heard along with suit for Specific Performance pending before the

Bombay City Civil Court, at Bombay. Since the respondents have

raised an objection, that such a transfer is not permitted in law. Two

14 (1995) 2 SCC 665
15 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1933
16 2021 (3) Mh.L.J.11.

                                   12
Diksha Rane                                              MCA 84-25.doc




questions arise, first whether such a transfer is permitted and if yes,

then whether in present proceedings on merits transfer application

should be allowed.

5.2           Section 24 of the C.P.C. only lays down general power of

transfer and withdrawal by a High Court or by a District Court. It

does not mention particular grounds on which a transfer can be

allowed.

5.3           In order to consolidate the law relating to the Courts of

Small Causes beyond the Presidency-towns, the Provincial Small

Causes Court Act, 1887 was enacted. It applies to the whole of India,

however, it is not applicable to the areas to which the Presidency

Small Causes Court Act, 1882, is applicable, which area includes the

city of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The suit premises is situated in

the city of Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay. Hence, as far as

Greater Bombay is concerned, what is applicable to the area is the

Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882.

5.4           Section 8 of the C.P.C. reads as under :

              8.      Presidency Small Causes Courts. - Save as provided in
              sections 24, 38 to 41, 75, clauses (a), (b) and (c), 76 [77, 157
              and 158], and by the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882
              (15 of 1882), the provisions in the body of this Code shall not
              extend to any suit or proceeding in any Court of Small Causes
              established in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay:


                                       13
Diksha Rane                                                MCA 84-25.doc




              Provided that -
              (1)     the High Courts of Judicature of Fort William, Madras
              and Bombay, as the case may be, may from time to time, by
              notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any such
              provisions of inconsistent with the express provisions of the
              Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 (15 of 1882), and
              with such modifications and adaptations as may be specified in
              the notification, shall extend to suits or proceedings or any class
              of suits or proceedings in such Court;
              (2)     all rules heretofore made by any of the said High Courts
              under section 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882
              (15 of 1882), shall be deemed to have been validly made.]


5.5           Therefore, as per section 8 of the C.P.C., section 24 of the

C.P.C. would apply to the proceedings which fall under the Presidency

Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

5.6           Section 3 of the City Civil Court’s Act defines constitution

of the Bombay City Court, which states that the State Government

may by notification in the official gazette establish for Greater

Bombay a Court to be called as Bombay City Civil Court.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such courts shall

have jurisdiction to receive and try and dispose of all suits of a civil

nature and at present not exceeding Rs.10 crore in value, arising

within the Greater Bombay, except suits or proceedings which are

cognizable by High Court in its admiralty jurisdiction, High Court as a

relief for insolvent debtors, or High Court under any special law other

than Letters Patent, or High Court under the Parsi Marriage and



                                        14
Diksha Rane                                       MCA 84-25.doc




Divorce Act, or High Court in respect of IPR matters, and the suits to

be decided specifically by the Small Causes Court.

5.7           Therefore, the City of Bombay does not have a Civil

Court called as Civil Judge Junior Division and Civil Judge Senior

Division.

5.8           Sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent

Control Act, mentions in clause (a) that notwithstanding anything

contained in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the District Court may at

any stage withdraw any such suit or proceedings pending before

Small Causes Court established for any area under the Provincial

Small Causes Court Act and transfer the same for trial or disposal to

the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division having ordinary jurisdiction

in such area.

5.9           Section 33 (2)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act

and erstwhile Section 28(2)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act gives power

to a District Court to transfer a suit from Small Causes Court to Civil

Judge Senior Division. In the City of Bombay, there is no Senior

Division Court, and the District Court for the City of Bombay would

be the Bombay City Civil Court. Therefore, in Greater Bombay there

will be no question of a transfer of a suit filed before Small Cause


                                  15
Diksha Rane                                                MCA 84-25.doc




Court under the provision of Section 33(2)(a) of the Maharashtra

Rent Control Act, to the Civil Judge Senior Division. Therefore, the

only way to seek a transfer of a suit filed in Small Causes Court to a

Civil Court in the City of Bombay would be by way of an application

under Section 24 of C.P.C.

5.10                 Section 3 of the C.P.C. defines the subordination of

Courts, where it has been stated that a District Court is subordinate

to a High Court and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a

District Court and also a Court of Small Causes, are subordinate to

the High Court.

5.11          Section 24 deals with all kinds of suits to be transferred.

Section 24 (4) states that any suit transferred from the Court of Small

Causes to any other Court would be deemed to be a Court of Small

Causes. Section 24(4) of C.P.C. reads as under:-

              “S.24(4)- The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under

              this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of

              such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.”


5.12            In Ulhas Harishchandra Dhargalkar                    (supra), Single

Judge of this Court dealing with identical facts where transfer was

sought of suit pending in Small Causes Court to Bombay City Civil



                                         16
Diksha Rane                                      MCA 84-25.doc




Court, where defendant’s suit for specific performance was pending.

The Single Judge considered Section 24(4) of C.P.C. and Section 8 of

C.P.C., and allowed the transfer application. I am in agreement with

the law laid down in Ulhas Harishchandra Dhargalkar (supra).

5.13          Similar view has been taken by Single Judge of Madras

High Court in M. Alwar (supra).

5.14          In Maganlal Vijbhukandas (supra), way back in 1904,

Single Judge of this court while considering Clause 13 of Letters

Patent held that in appropriate matter Small Causes suit can be

transferred to High Court.

5.15          Likewise in Vithoba (supra) in the year 1931, while

considering the provisions of Section 24 of C.P.C. transferred suit

from Small Causes Court to the regular Court of sub-ordinate judge,

where applicant’s suit was pending. Setting aside the District Court

order which held that he had power to transfer the case, but refused

to transfer the application on the ground that transfer of suit would

involve difficulties, the Court agreed with District Court that under

Section 24 of C.P.C. the Courts had powers to transfer and its opinion

transfer is desirable and the Court to which the case is transferred,

will be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes competent to try the


                                  17
Diksha Rane                                       MCA 84-25.doc




case in that capacity.

5.16          In the same way Division Bench of this Court in

Parshottamdas Chunilal Shah (supra) held that Section 24(1) of C.P.c.

gives power to High Court or District Court to transfer a suit from

Small Causes to a regular Court, and sub-section (4) of Section 24,

lays down that any case transferred from a Small Causes to a regular

Court, shall be tried as a Small Causes suit.

5.17          Full Bench of this Court in Annama Philips (supra) to the

reference of Question of Law, held that the provisions of section

41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, the Small Causes Court constituted

under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act is sub-ordinate to the

Bombay High Court.

5.18          Supreme Court in Chitivalas Jute Mills (supra), under

Section 25 of the C.P.C. transferred suit filed for recovery at Rewa,

Madhya Pradesh to Visakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh, where suit for

goods sold and delivered was pending. Supreme Court held that

consolidation of trial, the parties will be relieved of the need to

adduce the same or similar evidence. There will be common

argument and common judgment.

5.19          Single Judge of this Court in Bababhai Jamnadas (supra)


                                   18
Diksha Rane                                        MCA 84-25.doc




clubbed two suits, one where the owners claim possession from

purported trespassers and the other whether the same purported

trespassers, as agreement tenants claim to be entitled to exclusive

possession.

5.20          Division Bench of this Court in Ranchhodlal Vallabhdas

(supra) were considering the provisions of the Provincial Small

Causes Court Act.

5.21          In Eknath Vithal Ogale (supra), Supreme Court decided

the issue that a suit by a licensee against a licensor, who is said to be

threatening to disturb the possession of the licensee without

following due process of law, is cognizable by Court of Small Causes

as per Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882.

The ration laid down in this judgment does not help the respondent,

who claims to be landlord in the present proceedings.

5.22          Narhari Kanda (supra), judgment delivered by me dealt

with the issue of tenancy coming to an end only by eviction decree or

by surrender of tenancy by tenant in favour of landlord. The

conclusion arrived at does not help the respondents in the present

proceedings.

5.23          In Rahul Bothra (supra), Single Judge of this Court was


                                   19
Diksha Rane                                         MCA 84-25.doc




dealing with order passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, allowing

application filed by defendant u/s.10 of C.P.C. for stay of suit. There

is no discussion of Section 24 of C.P.C., since the same was not

involved. Hence, the judgment does not help the respondent herein.

5.24          Therefore, in my view, even in the City of Bombay, a suit

from Small Causes Court can be transferred to a Civil Court in

Mumbai which will be the Bombay City Civil Court.

Whether on merits transfer application filed u/s.24 and 151 of C.P.C.
should be allowed

6.             In the present proceedings, it is the case of the

respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they are the landlords of the suit building.

There was an MOU between them and the applicant with other

occupants of the building. A part of the payment was made by the

applicants which is admitted by the applicants. The MOU was signed

to that effect. However, as the parties did not proceed further, the

applicants filed a suit for declaration and specific performance

against respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

6.1            If one considers a situation where, both the suits are not

clubbed together and the suit for specific performance filed by the

tenant is decreed in favour of the tenant for specific performance,



                                    20
Diksha Rane                                         MCA 84-25.doc




then the tenant will become a owner/landlord, and there cannot be a

eviction suit against such a landlord, and in another situation if

eviction suit filed by the landlord is tried and decreed first in favor of

the landlord and subsequently the Bombay City Civil Court decrees

the specific performance suit in favour of tenant and declares them as

owners of the suit property. Then there will be two conflicting

decrees in the field.

6.2           In both the suits parties are common. Both suits relate to

same premises. Matter in dispute will not be really decided until both

the suits terminate. If both the suits are clubbed together, then there

will be advantage to the Judge, who will hear these proceedings, to

decide both the issues simultaneously. The parties would be relieved

of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral

evidence twice at two different trials. Hence, both M.C.As. need to be

allowed.

                                 ORDER

(a)           M.C.A.No.84 of 2025 and M.C.A.No.455 of 2025, stand
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

(b)           For the suits which are transferred, the Bombay City Civil
Court will be deemed to be Small Causes Court, competent to try the
suits in that capacity.


                                    21
                               Diksha Rane                                         MCA 84-25.doc




                               (c)           The proceedings of Small Causes suits be transferred
                               within four weeks to Bombay City Civil Court and be clubbed with
                               Suit No.2804 of 2024. The hearing of these suits is expedited. Both
                               the parties to co-operate in early hearing of the suits.

                                                                                      (Rajesh S. Patil, J.)




                                                                  22
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/08/2026 18:19:14