1 ( 2025:HHC:25585 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.595 of 2024 Date of Decision : 31.07.2025 Sohan Lal Sharma …… Petitioner Versus Dinesh Singh Thakur ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajat, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. B.R. Verma, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of a case bearing Civil Suit No.9006347/2009, titled Sohan Lal vs. Dinesh Singh Thakur pending consideration before Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla to the Court of learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, wherein inter se the parties another matter of the same nature being Civil Suit No.7/22, titled Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sohan Lal, is pending. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition. 3. The present petitioner has filed a civil suit for recovery against the present respondent. The same is titled Sohan Lal vs. Dinesh Singh 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:25585 ) Thakur. It has been registered as Civil Suit No.9006347/2009. The same is presently pending consideration before the Court of Civil Juudge, Court No.5. 4. The respondent, herein, has also filed a suit for recovery against the present petitioner. The same was initially filed in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. On account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the same was transferred to the Court of learned District Judge (II), Shimla. Presently, the same is pending consideration before the Court of learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla. The same is registered as Civil Suit No.7/2022, titled Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sohan Lal. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for transfer of the case filed by the present petitioner from the Court of Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla to the Court of learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla and for consolidation of the two suits mentioned (supra). 6. Besides the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent fairly admits that both the civil suit arise out of the same cause of action, i.e., work awarded to the present petitioner. But, both are pending consideration in different Courts on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. 7. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code enjoins the filing of the suit in the lowest grade competent to try it. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is contended that the competency contemplated by Section 15 is the only pecuniary competency. It is further contended that Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code is a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction. It is a direction to the suitor and not an absolute rule binding on the Court. 8. Besides the aforesaid, it is contended that insofar as the superior Court is concerned, there is no lack of jurisdiction for the superior 3 ( 2025:HHC:25585 ) Court to try the suit. Based on the aforesaid, it is contended that transfer of the suit, in the case at hand from the Court of Civil Judge to that of the District Judge will not tantamount to non compliance of Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. The District Judge whose pecuniary jurisdiction is higher will have competency and jurisdiction to try the suit. 9. In order to support the contention, reliance has been placed upon the decisions in Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. vs. Manju Awasthy, (1997) 68 DLT 112 and Hubert Peyoli vs. Abusali 2008 (1) Civil Court Cases 199 (Kerala). 10. I see force in the arguments and in my considered view Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be an impediment in the way of transferring the suit from the Court of Civil Judge, in the case at hand to a superior Court whose pecuniary jurisdiction is higher. 11. In view of the above, present petition is allowed. The case bearing Civil Suit No.9006347/2009, titled Sohan Lal vs. Dinesh Singh Thakur pending consideration before Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla and the same is ordered to be consolidated with Civil Suit No.7/2022, titled Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sohan Lal, pending consideration before learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla. 12. Records of the case bearing Civil Suit No.9006347/2009, titled Sohan Lal vs. Dinesh Singh Thakur pending consideration before Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla be transferred forthwith. It be ensured that the records are received by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla on or before the next date of hearing. 4 ( 2025:HHC:25585 ) 13. On receipt of the records of the aforesaid civil suit, the aforesaid two suits shall be consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision. The Court may frame consolidated issues. Consolidation of suits is being ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. The parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. The evidence having been recorded, common arguments need be addressed followed by one common judgment. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla on 20.08.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. + (Bipin Chander Negi) July 31, 2025 (KS) Judge