104-NLR-NLR-V-48-JOSEPH-Petitioner-and-KASUPATHY-Respondent.pdf
326
Joseph v. Kasupathy.
1946Present: Nagalingam A. J.
JOSEPH, Petitioner, and KASUPATHY, Respondent.
Application for the transfer of C. R. Batticaloa, 3,152, to theDistrict Court.
Court of Requests—Claim in reconvention—Beyond jurisdiction of Com-missioner—Transfer to District Court—Courts Ordinance, s. 79.
Where in an action in a Court of Requests a claim in reconventionis made by the defendant which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Courta transfer to the District Court will be allowed where the claims of theplaintiff and defendant are so intimately connected that conveniencedemands that both claims should be tried together.
A
PPLICATION for the transfer of a case from the Court of Requests,Batticaloa, to the District Court.
Thomas, for the defendant, petitioner.
C. T. Olegasegarem, for the plaintiff, respondent.
NAGALINGAM A.J.—Joseph v. Kasupathy.
327
December 4, 1946. Nagalingam A.J.—
This is an application by the defendant for the transfer of theseproceedings from the Court of Requests to the District Court of Battl-caloa on the ground that the claim in reconvention exceeds the monetary'jurisdiction of the Court of Requests.
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent states that the plaintiff’sclaim in convention was one which concerns the possession of land but onexamination of the plaint it is found that the tenancy of the defendant,which was admitted by the latter, has in no way been terminated andthe plaintiff cannot therefore be entitled to possession. In the circum-stances, the claim in convention which is one for compensation forrent is opposed by a claim in reconvention for compensation in respectof certain improvements made under a certain agreement entered intobetween the parties.
The true position would appear to be that if the claim for ejectmentcannot be sustained, the defendant’s claim in reconvention also cannotbe adjudicated upon at this stage ; that is to say, till there is anorder for the ejectment of the defendant from the premises. It mayvery well be that notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff has not setout the legal position for his relief for ejectment of the defendant yetby way of amendment or otherwise of the pleadings, the plaintiff may yetproperly claim it and the Court may come to the conclusion that theplaintiff is entitled to an order of ejectment in his favour.
In this state of facts where the claims of the plaintiff and the defendantare intimately connected with each other, it seems to me that conveniencedemands that both claims should be dealt with together. I would,therefore, allow the application for the transfer and order accordingly.The defendant will be entitled to the costs of the application.
Application allowed.