Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1621 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. Siri Bhagwan

2013-12-06

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states thatrespondentsno.1 and 2arethe only contesting respondents and service upon remaining respondents may be dispensed with, at this stage. In view of above, service upon remaining respondents is dispensed with, at this stage. Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.03.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurgaon whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (in short“ CPC”) for deciding civil suittitled 'Smt. Kaushal and others vs. Siri Bhagwanand others with another civil suit Om Parkash vs. Shri Bhagwan and others has been dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that both the civil suits are in respect of the same property and the same may be disposed of by a common judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In Ramji Gupta and another vs. Gopi Krishan Agrawal (D) and others, 2013(2)RCR(Civil) 898,the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “20.Section 151CPC is not a substantive provision that confers the right to get any relief of any kind. It is amere procedural provision which enables a party to have the proceedings of a pending suit conducted in a manner that is consistent with justice and equity. The court can do justice between the parties before it. Similarly, inherent powers cannot be used tore-open settled matters. The in herent powers of the Court must, to that extent, be regarded as abrogated by the Legislature. A provision barring the exercise of inherent power need not be express, it may even be implied. In herent power cannot be used to restrain the execution of a decree at the instance of one who was not a party to suit. Such power is absolutely essential for securing the ends of justice, and to overcome the failure of justice. The Court under Section 151 CPC may adopt any procedure to do justice, unless the same is expressly prohibited. The consolidation of suits has not been provided for under any of the provisions of the Code, unless there is a State amendment in this regard. The Court under Section 151 CPC may adopt any procedure to do justice, unless the same is expressly prohibited. The consolidation of suits has not been provided for under any of the provisions of the Code, unless there is a State amendment in this regard. Thus, the same can be done in exercise of the powers under Section 151CPC, where a common question of fact and law arise there in, and the same must also not be a case of mis-joinder of parties. The non-consolidation of two or more suits is likely to lead to a multiplicity of suits being filed, leaving the door open for conflicting decisions on the same issue, which maybe common to the two or more suits that are sought to be consolidated. Non-consolidation may, therefore, prejudice a party, or result in the failure of justice. Inherent powers maybe exercised ex debito justitiae in those cases, where there is no express provision in CPC. The said powers cannot be exercised in contravention of, or in conflict with, or upon ignoring express and specific provisions of the law.” It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Both the suits are at different stages. The civil suit titled 'Smt. Kaushal and others vs. Siri Bhagwan and others' was filed in 2005 and another civil suit titled 'Om Parkash vs. Shri Bhagwan and others' was filed in 2012. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to consolidate both suits. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, however, since both the civil suits are in respect of same property, it is made clear that both the civil suits shall be tried by one and the same Court, subject to the condition that the concerned Presiding Officer is not transferred. Disposed of in the aforementioned terms.