Full Text
Translation output
$-21 .
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 780/2013 & CMNo.l 1911/2013
SMT KAMLA DEVI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Anupam Sharaia, Adv.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 780/2013 & CMNo.l 1911/2013
SMT KAMLA DEVI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Anupam Sharaia, Adv.
VERSUS
SH ASHOK KUMAR Respondent
Through Mr.R.K. Jain, Adv. with respondent in person.
Through Mr.R.K. Jain, Adv. with respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
25.10.2013 By the impugned order dated 4"' July, 2013 the application of the petitioners for consolidation of three suits filed by the respondent between the parties was dismissed mainly on the ground that one ofthe suits is at the stage of plaintiffs evidence which is a suit for declaration/cancellation of sale deed and the recoveiy of possession and the other suits are for injunction simplicitor which are pending m different courts before the Civil
Judge and causes of action in tliree suits are different. Therefore, no case for transfer of suits could made and the applicationwas dismissed.
The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing of the present petition and have prayed to set aside the same.
The details ofthe said suits are given as under: i) Suit No.698/2012, titled as "Sh.Ashok Kumar vs. Smt. Krishna Devi", pendingin tlie CourtofSh.Chandra Bose, CivilJudge, Delhi (North).
2013:DHC:8284 ii) Suit No.347/2010, titled as "Sh. Ashok Kumar vs. Smt.Kamla
Devi", pending in the Court ofSh.JitenderPratap Singh, Civil
Judge, North, Delhi. iii) SuitNo.224/2012, titled as "Sh.Ashok Kumarvs. Sh.Brij Pal &
Ors., pending in the Court of Sh.Ajay Goel, ADJ, North, Delhi.
During the couise of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent has infoimed the Court that in none of the cases the evidence is recorded.
He states that in one suit, the matter is fixed for evidence and in other two suits an application for amendment ofthe plaintis pendingand the pleadings
^ are complete. It is not denied by the learned counsel tliat two other suits which were filed for injunction are also with respect to the same propeity and all the three suitsrevolve aroundsame controversy betweenthe parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in order to cut short the multiplicity of the litigation and in order to avoid any conflict of
25.10.2013 By the impugned order dated 4"' July, 2013 the application of the petitioners for consolidation of three suits filed by the respondent between the parties was dismissed mainly on the ground that one ofthe suits is at the stage of plaintiffs evidence which is a suit for declaration/cancellation of sale deed and the recoveiy of possession and the other suits are for injunction simplicitor which are pending m different courts before the Civil
Judge and causes of action in tliree suits are different. Therefore, no case for transfer of suits could made and the applicationwas dismissed.
The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing of the present petition and have prayed to set aside the same.
The details ofthe said suits are given as under: i) Suit No.698/2012, titled as "Sh.Ashok Kumar vs. Smt. Krishna Devi", pendingin tlie CourtofSh.Chandra Bose, CivilJudge, Delhi (North).
2013:DHC:8284 ii) Suit No.347/2010, titled as "Sh. Ashok Kumar vs. Smt.Kamla
Devi", pending in the Court ofSh.JitenderPratap Singh, Civil
Judge, North, Delhi. iii) SuitNo.224/2012, titled as "Sh.Ashok Kumarvs. Sh.Brij Pal &
Ors., pending in the Court of Sh.Ajay Goel, ADJ, North, Delhi.
During the couise of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent has infoimed the Court that in none of the cases the evidence is recorded.
He states that in one suit, the matter is fixed for evidence and in other two suits an application for amendment ofthe plaintis pendingand the pleadings
^ are complete. It is not denied by the learned counsel tliat two other suits which were filed for injunction are also with respect to the same propeity and all the three suitsrevolve aroundsame controversy betweenthe parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in order to cut short the multiplicity of the litigation and in order to avoid any conflict of
ORDER
between the paities as well as time of the court and cost of the litigation of the parties, the application under Section 24 CPC should be allowed. He undertakes to this Couit that the petitioners will cooperatewith the respondent for the puipose of disposal of the amendment applications which are pending in two suits as well as when the issues would be framed by the couit so that all the suits may be put up for evidence of the parties.
Counsel relied upon the following judgments in support ofhis submissions:
(i) Sh.Kamnesh Mittal & Ors. v^. State Bank of Patiala, MANU/DE/0524/2012 (Para 12).
(ii) Sh.Harjeet Singh Maini V5'. Paramjit Singh Maini, 153 (2008)
DLT 127 (Paras 18, 24 & 26).
(iii) Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Etc. v.v.
V
Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (D) Th. LRs & Ors., II (2013) SLT
528 (Para 43).
(iv) Prem Lala Nahata and Ann vs. Chandi Pasad Sikaria, AIR
Counsel relied upon the following judgments in support ofhis submissions:
(i) Sh.Kamnesh Mittal & Ors. v^. State Bank of Patiala, MANU/DE/0524/2012 (Para 12).
(ii) Sh.Harjeet Singh Maini V5'. Paramjit Singh Maini, 153 (2008)
DLT 127 (Paras 18, 24 & 26).
(iii) Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Etc. v.v.
V
Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (D) Th. LRs & Ors., II (2013) SLT
528 (Para 43).
(iv) Prem Lala Nahata and Ann vs. Chandi Pasad Sikaria, AIR
2007 SC 1247 (Paras 16 & 19). In view of the settled law on this aspect, I find there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The order which has been passed by the learned trial court is contrary to the settled law. The saine is set aside. The prayer made in the petition is allowed. The petition is disposed ofaccordingly. [OHA^INGH^ OCTOBER 25, 2013