Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 439 (UTT)

MUKESH DEVI v. MANJU DEVI

2009-08-20

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2009
Judgment By means of this petition moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the trial court (1st Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun) in suit No. 184/2007, Mukesh Devi Versus Manju Devi, and order dated 30th of April, 2009 passed by Revisional Court (Addl. District Judge/F.T.C. V, Dehradun) in civil revision No. 33 of 2009 whereby the order passed by the Trial Court is affirmed, staying the proceedings of subsequent suit under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure affirmed, staying the proceedings of subsequent suit under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Manju Devi filed original suit No. 130/2007 against the petitioner Mukesh Devi for cancellation of agreement dated 05.05.2006 for sale. Thereafter, suit No. 184/2007 is filed by the petitioner Mukesh Devi against respondent Manju Devi for specific performance of the same agreement dated 05.05.2006. In the subsequent suit, the defendant raised the plea to stay the proceedings under section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on which the impugned order dated 19.02.2009 was passed by the trial court staying the proceedings of the subsequent suit i.e. suit No. 184/2007, instituted by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the provisions contained in order IV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended vide U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976) which provides for consolidation of cases. Rule 1 of order IV-A of the U.P. amendments reads as under :- “Consolidation of suits and proceedings – When two or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same court, and the court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may by order direct their joint trial, whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits or proceedings.” 5. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that the trial court has erred in law in staying the proceedings of the subsequent suit instead of consolidating the two suits. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that the trial court has erred in law in staying the proceedings of the subsequent suit instead of consolidating the two suits. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the provisions contained in section 10 of C.P.C. are mandatory in nature and the trial court has rightly stayed the proceedings of the subsequent suit. After weighing rival contentions, this court is of the view that a harmonious construction is required to be made in following provisions of section 10 of the Code, and order IV-A Rule 1 of the Code as amended vide U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976. If by consolidation of suits pending in the same court, multiplicity of the litigations is restricted, the object of section 10 of the Code is automatically achieved. In such circumstances consolidation is desirable. (The principle laid down in Anand Gupta Versus Naveen Agarwal AIR 1984 Allahabad 387 relied). 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the facts and circumstances, this Court is of view that the two suits filed by the parties against each other in respect of the suits and their joint trial. The object of section 10 Cr.P.C. is to restrict the multiplicity of the litigations between the parties particularly in different courts. Since in the present suits, both the suits were pending in the same court, it is just and expedient to try them together instead of staying the proceedings of the subsequent suit. 7. For the reasons as discussed above, this petition is allowed, impugned order dated 30th of April, 2009 passed by the Revisional Court (Addl. District Judge/F.T.C.-V, Dehradun) in civil revision No. 33 of 2009 and order dated 19-02-2009 passed by the trial court in suit No. 184/2007 are hereby quashed. The issue relating to section 10 C.P.C. raised in the subsequent suit stands decided in negative. 8. The Trial Court is directed to consolidate the two suits and decide them jointly by making suit No. 130/2007 as a leading case in which both the parties may lead their evidence in respect of both the suits.