The petitioner challenged an order dismissing a motion to stay concurrent civil proceedings. The High Court, noting both suits are in the same trial court, suggested and ordered that the suits be clubbed together for disposal.
Suits No.3050/2009 and Suit No.238/2013 clubbed together to be disposed of by the same court.
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.
1
16.wp.1911-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 1911 OF 2016
RAJENDRAKUMAR AMARCHAND JAIN Versus
MOHANRAJ RUPCHAND JAIN @ CHHAJED
...Petitioner
...Respondent
Mr. P.J. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Santosh Adukia, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.
DATE : 15th MARCH, 2016
P.C.
Motion taken out by the petitioner for staying the proceedings of
2
16.wp.1911-16.doc
Suit No.238/2013 till decision on Suit No.3050/2009.
2 / 3
3
16.wp.1911-16.doc
transferred to the City Civil Court, during the course of hearing, I suggested the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as to whether they have any objection if both the suits are clubbed together and tried together. The learned Counsel for the parties signified their no objection for adopting this course. A request was made by them for directing the trial Court to dispose of the suits expeditiously.
( R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
3 / 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the two pending suits concerning the same property should be clubbed together for trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendar Kumar Amarchand Jain
Mohanraj Rupchand Jain @ Chhajed
R. G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
