Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1249 (MP)

Manakchand Ruthia v. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal

2007-12-04

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2007
ORDER 1. Heard learned senior counsel on the question of admission. This order shall also govern the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 16255/2003, Manakchand Ruthia v. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and another. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sehore in Civil Suit No. 3-N2006 by which the application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') by the first respondent seeking consolidation of Civil. Suit No. 3-A/2006 and Civil Suit No. 20-A/2005 has been allowed, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 20-A/2005 seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the first respondent. As per the plaint averments first respondent (defendant No.1) entered into an agreement of sale on 29.9.1998 with the petitioner (plaintiff) to purchase the land out of Survey No. 480 Chawni, Sehore. It is stated that since the defendant No. 1 failed to abide by the conditions of the said sale agreement the sale agreement lost its efficacy. In the circumstances, the defendant No. 1 has no right to claim any right over the said land and is not entitled to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner/ plaintiff over the said land. 4. The respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 submitted his written statement on 3.5.2006 in the said Civil Suit No. 20-A/2005. Alongwith the written statement the defendant No. 1 also filed an application under section 151 of the CPC stating therein that he has also filed a Civil Suit No. 3-A/2006 against the plaintiff which is also pending in the same Court and, therefore, both the suits be consolidated and be tried together. 5. The trial Court before deciding the said application framed issues in both the civil suits on 21.2.2007. Thereafter the respondent No. 1/ defendant No.1 submitted yet another application on 14.9.2007 under section 151 of the CPC reiterating his prayer for consolidation of both the suits. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.10.2007 allowed the application dated 14.9.2007 filed by the first respondent/defendant No.1 and directed for consolidation of both the suits. Similar order was passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2005 which is subject matter of challenge in WP No. 16255/2007. 6. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.10.2007 allowed the application dated 14.9.2007 filed by the first respondent/defendant No.1 and directed for consolidation of both the suits. Similar order was passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2005 which is subject matter of challenge in WP No. 16255/2007. 6. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the issues involved in both the suits are different and since the petitioner's/plaintiff's evidence in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2005 has already been recorded the order directing consolidation would cause delay and injustice to the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the documents filed alongwith the petition, I find no merit in this petition. 8. In the Civil Suit No. 3-A/2006 filed by the respondent No.1, he is seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale. His claim is based on the same agreement dated 29.9.1998, which according to the petitioner in his Civil Suit No. 20-A/2005 has lost its efficacy due to non-compliance of the conditions of the said sale agreement. Thus, both the suits are based upon the same agreement of sale between the same parties and in respect of the same survey number of the land. Merely because different issues have been framed in the said suits it cannot be said that the suits are so distinct that they cannot be tried together and the issues cannot be tried jointly. 9. The trial Court has correctly exercised the inherent powers vested in it under section 151 of the CPC by ordering consolidation of both the suits in order to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The consolidation of the suit can be ordered to save the parties from multiplicity of the proceedings, delay and expenses. On going through the pleadings of both the suits, I find that there is substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in both the suits. In my view by consolidation the parties will be relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice into two different suits at two different trials. On going through the pleadings of both the suits, I find that there is substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in both the suits. In my view by consolidation the parties will be relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice into two different suits at two different trials. The Court would be able to pass a common judgment and it will be open for the Court either to draw two different decrees or one common decree which can be placed on records of the two suits. 10. Merely because the plaintiff has adduced his evidence in one of the suit will not be a ground to restrict the trial Court's power to consolidate the two suits which for the reasons stated above needs to be consolidated and more particularly when the defendant No. 1 had filed the first application under section 151 of the CPC in the petitioner's suit seeking consolidation, at the initial stage itself. 11. In this view of the matter, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.