Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1998 (RAJ)

Magha Ram v. Shanker Das

2013-11-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.2.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case may be noticed that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent on 4.2.2013 in relation to a residential plot ad-measuring 180' x 80' situated at Raiyawali based on patta issued by Gram Panchayat, Rajpura and prayed that the respondent be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 3. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed which came to be decided by order dated 5.2.2013 and the respondent was restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 4. Thereafter, respondent-Shankar Lal on 13.2.2013 filed a suit against the plaintiff inter-alia claiming possession on a residential plot ad-measuring 90' x 125' based on patta and sought injunction against the petitioner herein from interfering with the peaceful possession. 5. The application was filed by the petitioner under Sections 10, 11 & 12 CPC seeking stay of further proceedings in the suit filed by the respondent inter-alia with the averments that the subject matter and parties to the suit are same and the suit filed by the respondent is subsequent to the suit filed by the plaintiff, the same be stayed, which application came to be rejected by the trial court on coming to the conclusion that while the plaintiff has sought relief qua his plot and the defendant has sought relief qua his plot, both are different in size, ownership and neighbourhood and therefore, it cannot be said that the subject matter of the suit was one and the same. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a look at the reply filed by the respondent to the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner would reveal that it is claimed by the respondent that the land in question, which is subject matter of the suit filed by the petitioner, belongs to him and is part of his (respondent) patta and there is every likelihood of passing of two contradictory decree in case both the suits are proceeded simultaneously and therefore, the suit filed by the respondent should have been stayed. 7. 7. In reply, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the order impugned does not call for any interference as the patta size and neighbourhood of both the plots are different and both the parties can maintain suits in relation to their own plots and therefore, it cannot be said that the subject matter of both the suits are one and the same. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is apparent that there is a dispute between the parties, who have plots situated next to each other and both have made allegations against one another of attempt to encroach upon / trespass on each other's land and interfere with their respective possession and therefore, though both the lands are having separate patta and ownership documents, it cannot be said that both the suits are unrelated and the decree passed in one suit would not effect the merits and / or outcome of the another suit. 10. The ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would meet if both the suits filed by the petitioner and the respondent are ordered to be consolidated and thereafter tried by the trial court. Both the suits are being tried by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Suratgarh (Sriganganagar), therefore, even transfer of any suit from one court to another is not required. 11. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that Civil Original Suit No. 4/2013, Magha Ram v. Mohan Das and Civil Original Suit No. 10/2013, Shankar Das v. Magha Ram would be consolidated by the trial court and would be tried thereafter.However, the pending temporary injunction application filed by the respondent would be decided independently, the same would not be governed by the decision in temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner and decided by order dated 5.2.2013.The stay application also stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******