Single judge allowed consolidation of two civil suits involving the same property and parties for analogous hearing, directing disposal of pending interim applications first.
Petitioner's prayer for setting aside the consolidation order was dismissed; interim applications to be disposed of.
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.
CMP No.683 of 2016
23.11.2016
This petition challenges the order dated 17.3.2016 passed by the learn
ed 2nd A.C.J. (S.D.), Bhubaneswar in C.S.No.394 of 2009. By the said order, the learned trial
court consolidated C.S.No.394 of 2009 and C.S.No.66 of 2009 for analogous hearing.
Heard Mr.Rout, learned Advocate for the petitioner and D.Nanda, learne
d Advocate for opposite party no.1.
C.S.No.66 of 2009 has been filed by opposite party no.1 as plaintiff a
gainst her father and brothers for partition of the suit schedule property. She has also filed
C.S.No.394 of 2009 for declaration of title, setting aside of sale deed, confirmation of pos
session and permanent injunction impleading her father, brothers and the present petitioners a
s defendants. In C.S.No.394 of 2009, the present petitioners, who are the defendants 6, 7 & 8,
has filed a counter claim. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an applicat
ion for restoration. The same is pending. While the matter stood thus, she filed an applicatio
n on 8.7.2015 for consolidation of two suits. The learned trial court allowed the application.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
the parties to C.S.No.66 of 2009. Further C.S.No.394 of 2009 has been dismissed for non-prosec
ution and as such both the suits cannot be tried analogously.
Mr.Nanda, learned Advocate for opposite party no.1, on the other hand,
submits that the plaintiff has filed an application for restoration of C.S.No.394 of 2009. Sh
e has
filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment as defendant in C.S.
No.66 of 2009.
Admittedly, the properties in both the suits are same. The plaintiff f
iled an application for restoration of C.S.No.394 of 2009. She has also filed an application f
or impleadment of the petitioners as defendants in C.S.No.66 of 2009. In view of the same, the
learned trial court is quite justified in consolidating the two suits for analogous hearing.
Since the applications for restoration of the suit and impleadment are pending, the learned tr
ial court shall do well to dispose of the interim application before proceeding further.
The petition is disposed of.
Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether two suits involving the same property and same parties are eligible for consolidation for analogous hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Defendants 6, 7 & 8)
Opposite Party 1 (Plaintiff)
A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court