Allowed

Ramalo Devi v. Shri Ram (D) Th Lrs and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2017CR/4279/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside the trial Court's order dismissing an application to consolidate two suits involving identical subject matter. The High Court directed consolidation to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, noting the commonality in parties, property, and scope of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.05.2017 was set aside, and the trial Court was directed to try both suits together after consolidating them.

Ramalo Devi Vs Shri Ram (D) Th Lrs and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CR-4279-2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR-4279-2017

¶5

Date of decision: 05.07.2017

Ramalo Devi

..... Petitioner

Versus

Shri Ram (since deceased) through LRs and others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with

¶13

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Challenge has been laid in the instant revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 30.05.2017, passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application of the petitioner for consolidation of two suits titled as (i) Shree Ram through his LRs Vs. Ajaib Singh etc. and (ii) Ramalo Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh etc., was dismissed.

¶16

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the main thing which weighed in the mind of the trial Court was that the earlier suit by Shree Ram (since deceased) was filed in year 2007 and the petitioner had filed her suit in the year 2013, but the same has no material bearing on the factual aspect of both the cases, because it is a long drawn litigation between the parties. Earlier, the petitioner had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading her as a party in the suit filed by

¶17

respondent No. 1-Shree Ram (since deceased) during his life time.

¶18

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.13 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶19

CR-4279-2017 -2-

¶20

However, the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2013, but this Court vide order dated 05.05.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed in CR-5387-2013, allowed the petitioner to be impleaded as a defendant. Consequently, the plaint was amended and the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 7 in the earlier suit. Thereafter, the issues were reframed on 08.08.2016 and now after conclusion of evidence by respondent No. 1-plaintiff, the case is fixed for the evidence of the defendants including the petitioner.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book.

¶22

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Court has itself observed in the impugned order that “the subject matter involved in both the suits is common and identical in nature and the parties are to lead the same oral and documentary evidence with regard to the validity of the documents. The property involved in both the suit is almost the same”. In both the cases, challenge has been made to the General Attorney, allegedly executed in favour of Ajaib Singh and Gurmit Singhrespondents No. 3 and 4, respectively, on 03.10.2007. Similarly, gift deed dated 19.10.2007, executed in favour of respondent No. 5-Smt. Poonam wife of Gurmit Singh-respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 6-Sunita wife of respondent No. 3-Ajaib Singh, is also under challenge in both the cases. Subsequently, sale deed executed on 19.10.2007 is also under challenge in both the suits. Parties to both the suits are same, except one Anil Kumar Mittal, who was impleaded as a party in case titled as Ramalo Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh etc., being Deed-writer.

¶23

The above observations of the learned trial Court in the

¶24

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.13 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶25

CR-4279-2017 -3-

¶26

impugned order dated 30.05.2017, makes it clear that consolidation of both the suits is necessary to save the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay, unnecessary expenses and conflicting judgments, more particularly, when the subject matter, property in dispute and parties are the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the earlier suit though was filed in the year 2007, but the petitioner was permitted to be impleaded as defendant No. 7 by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2015 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the earlier suit has also not been reached at its final stage, rather is at the stage of defendants' evidence and, thus, there is no justifiable reason for not consolidating both the suits. It is also evident from the impugned order that both the suits are pending before the trial Court itself.

¶27

In view of discussion above, the impugned order dated 30.05.2017, is hereby set aside and the learned trial Court is hereby directed to try both the suits together after consolidating them.

¶28

The instant revision stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶29

July 05, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶31

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.13 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ramalo Devi v. Shri Ram (D) Th Lrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramalo Devi v. Shri Ram (D) Th Lrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karamjit Singh Vs Darshan Singh and Anr.

Surinder Singh Vs Gurcharan Singh Randhawa and Anr.

Gyarsi Lal @ Gyarsa & Ors. Vs Amar Singh & Ors.

Vijay Singh Vs Virender Singh

Jasbir Singh Vs Jagir Singh and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs Jai Narain and Ors.