Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 390 (GAU)

Ranjan Chetia v. Amit Dev

2016-05-09

N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia, in Misc.(J) Case No.38/2015. The aforesaid Misc.(J) Case was registered on the basis of a petition filed by the present petitioners under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. To understand the subject matter of the revision petition it is necessary to narrate the skeletal basic facts at the threshold. The opposite party No.1 herein initially instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.15/2011 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia on 17.06.2011 against Sri Ranjan Chetia, Sri Kapil Deb and Bank of Baroda praying for declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of partnership business PUB WORLD under partnership with the defendants and also for recovery of money. Of course, prayers for other declarations like defendants are not entitled to occupy and run the partnership business and further declaration that defendant No.2 is not entitled to withhold and occupy the suit property were also made but the basic contention was that plaintiff was a partner of PUB WORLD. After institution of the first suit the present petitioners i.e. the two defendants, namely, Ranjan Chetia and Kapil Deb instituted another suit being Title Suit No.24/2011 on 12.09.2011 in the same court praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the guarantee document dated 21.01.2011 and equitable mortgage relating to the loan account of M/s ARK Group is a fraudulent one along with other prayers and consequential relief. 3. Having gone through the plaints in both the suits it appears that the plaintiff of the first suit, viz., Title Suit No.15/2011 instituted on 17.06.2011 and the second suit being Title Suit No.24/2011 instituted on 12.09.2011 by the defendants of the first suit in the same court hinge on the question as to whether Amit Deb happens to be a partner of PUB WORLD or ARK Group. When plaintiff of Title Suit No.15/2011 is claiming to be a partner with the defendants, the defendants say that the deed of guarantee or mortgage is fraudulent. When plaintiff of Title Suit No.15/2011 is claiming to be a partner with the defendants, the defendants say that the deed of guarantee or mortgage is fraudulent. Under such circumstances, considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial court has ultimately held that both the suits are related to some transactions and business of both the parties and hence some of the issues may be in conflict with each other in both the suits and so it would be appropriate to try both the suits simultaneously. 4. In the case of State Bank of India vs. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. and another, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 97 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that joint trial of civil suits can be ordered - (i) if any question of law and fact arises in both the proceedings; (ii) if plaintiff in one case is defendant in another; and (iii) if it can avoid overlapping of evidence. The law laid down in the case of Ranjan Chemicals (supra) subsequently came up for consideration in the case of Ram Prakash Agarwal and another vs. Gopi Krishan (dead through LRs) and others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 296 . 5. In the present case, similar situation as raised in the case of Ranjan Chemicals (supra) prima facie appears to exist. Here also both the suits hinge on the same cause and parties in both the suits are substantially same. That being the condition although the learned trial court passed the order for joint trial without considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, yet, the decision taken by the learned trial court appears totally in consonance with the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. Having so noted, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court cannot be held to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error whatsoever. Accordingly, the revision petition cannot be admitted. 6. I have heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 7. The revision petition accordingly stands closed. Interim order passed earlier stands automatically vacated. 8. Both the parties shall appear before the learned trial court on 06.06.2016 to obtain the necessary order for joint trial of the suits. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 7. The revision petition accordingly stands closed. Interim order passed earlier stands automatically vacated. 8. Both the parties shall appear before the learned trial court on 06.06.2016 to obtain the necessary order for joint trial of the suits. The learned court shall endeavour to expeditiously dispose of the suit in accordance with law.