The High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangadad rejected the petitioners' writ petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to club two civil suits. The Court held that the nature of controversy, issues, and defenses in both suits were different, precluding clubbing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2366 OF 2012
RAJARAM BAPU SHINDE AND ORS
VERSUS
NANABHAU BAPU SHINDE
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kasar h/f Mr.
Gaware Niteen V.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J.
Dated: April 29, 2013
...
PER COURT :-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
He submits that the Regular Civil Suit No. 185
of 2005 and Regular Civil Suit No. 186 of 2005
are required to be tried together. It is
submitted that the nature of controversy is
almost similar in both the suits. It is further
submitted that the Trial Court has not assigned
reasons while rejecting the application of the
petitioner for clubbing both the suits together
for hearing. It is further submitted that the
nature of evidence and defence taken by the
petitioner is almost identical. Therefore,
relying upon the grounds taken in the Petition,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Petition deserves to be allowed.
2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned
judgment, more particularly the paragraph No.4
sga
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
of the impugned judgment, in my opinion, both
suits cannot be clubbed together. The nature of
the controversy in both the suits are different,
issues are different so also defence in both
suits are also different. The Trial Court has
specifically observed that the evidence in both
the suits are different, therefore, in my
opinion, no interference is called for in the
impugned judgment. Hence Petition is devoid of
any merits and same stands rejected.
...
sga
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's rejection of the application to club Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 2005 and Regular Civil Suit No. 186 of 2005 together.
RAJARAM BAPU SHINDE AND ORS
NANABHAU BAPU SHINDE
S.S. SHINDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court