Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. Naresh Kumar

Telangana HC12 Jul 2011CRP/2641/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed three civil revisions against orders of Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, refusing clubbing of three suits. Court held that joint trial was necessary as suits remained on same subject, had common parties and issues, and clubbing was essential for effective trial and to avoid inconvenience. All three orders were set aside and suits directed to be clubbed and disposed by com

What did the court decide?

Orders refusing clubbing set aside; suits O.S.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2009 directed to be clubbed and disposed by common judgment.

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Naresh Kumar — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

C.R.P.NOS.2641, 2642 AND 2643 OF 2010

¶3

DATED: 12.07.2011

¶4

C.R.P.NO.2641 OF 2010

¶5

BETWEEN: Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and another .. Petitioners And Naresh Kumar and others .. Respondents C.R.P.NO. 2642 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and another .. Petitioners And Naresh Kumar and others .. Respondents C.R.P.NO. 2643 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Rajesh Kumar and another .. Petitioners And Naresh Kumar and others .. Respondents

¶6

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶7

C.R.P.NOs.2641, 2642 AND 2643 OF 2010

¶8

COMMON ORDER:

¶9

C.R.P.No.2641 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.5 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009.

¶10

2. C.R.P.No.2642 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.6 of 2009 in O.S.No.2 of 2009.

¶11

3. C.R.P.No.2643 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.7 of 2009 in O.S.No.3 of 2009.

¶12

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the revision petitions and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 in C.R.P.No.2641 of 2010 and respondents 9 and 10 in C.R.P.No.2642 of 2010.

¶13

5. There are three suits pending on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Kamareddy and they are O.S.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2009.

¶14

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that all the suits relate to the same subject matter, common questions relating to establishing joint possession and ownership in

¶15

the suit schedule properties would arise for consideration. They all pertain to the same subject matter and that the dispute arose between the parties on account of rival claims between the joint family members and subsequent purchasers. In fact, this Court earlier transferred O.S.No.4 of 2004 (renumbered as O.S.No.1 of 2009) and O.S.No.7 of 2006 (re-numbered as O.S.No.2 of 2009) to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kamareddy to be tried along with O.S.No.6 of 2006 (renumbered as O.S.No.3 of 2009). The revision petitioners made an application in all the suits for clubbing all the suits to conduct joint trial and pass a common judgment. The learned Additional District Judge by order held that despite the fact the respondents did not file the counters in the respective petitions, orally opposed for clubbing the suits and therefore, expressed the view that the reliefs sought in the suits are different and not against the same persons in all the suits. Expressing the said view and also considering the earlier order passed in CFR No.2870 of 2006, wherein the learned District Judge declined to club the suits, dismissed the applications filed by the revision petitioners.

¶16

7. Assailing the said orders, the revision petitioners filed the present revision petitions.

¶17

8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that to arrive at a proper understanding of the issues involved in the subject matter of the dispute and also for the sake of convenience of parties in the matter of adducing evidence and addressing the Court on all the issues it could have been appropriate for the learned District Judge to club the suits and record evidence in one suit.

¶18

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶19

the respondents would submit that in the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge all the parties are not common in all the suits and the relief sought also being different, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision reported in STATE BANK OF INDIA v RANJAN CHEMICALS LTD. AND ANOTHE R^[1] wherein the Supreme Court illustrated some instances where a joint trial of causes/actions can be ordered:

¶20

“They are (i) if common question of law or fact arises in both proceedings or right to relief claimed in them is in respect of or arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions, (ii) where plaintiff in one action is the same person as defendant in another action and if one action can be ordered to stand as a counterclaim in the consolidated action, and (iii) when court finds that ordering of such trial would avoid separate overlapping evidence being taken in the two causes put in suit and it would be more convenient to try them together in the interests of parties and for effective trial of the causes.”

¶21

The Supreme Court also further clarified that it is not necessary that all the questions or issues that arise should be common to both actions. If some issues and some evidence are common, it could be sufficient for joint trial, especially when the two actions arise out of the same transaction/series of transactions. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the power to order joint trial cannot be curtailed by introducing restriction to the effect that such order can be passed only if there is consent by both sides. It is further emphasized by the Supreme Court that a joint trial is ordered when a Court finds that the ordering of such a trial, would avoid separate overlapping evidence being taken in the two causes put in suit and it will be more convenient to try them together in the interests of the parties and in the interests of an effective trial of the causes.

¶22

10. The above cited decision in fact is in support of the contentions urged by the revision petitioners. In the cases in hand, the issues to be decided and the reliefs claimed are substantially the same relating to the same subject matter and the main contending parties are the same. Therefore, the learned District Judge ought not to have declined to club the suits and refuse to permit the parties to adduce evidence in one case.

¶23

11. To arrive at a comprehensive conclusion about the contentious issues involved in the suit and the rights of the parties involved, it is just and expedient to club all the suits and permit the parties to adduce evidence in one suit. If the suits are not clubbed together and if the parties are not permitted to adduce their evidence in one suit, it would cause much inconvenience to the parties and also comes in the way of effective trial of the suits. Though, the learned District Judge has discretion either to permit clubbing of the suits or to disallow the said course, the learned District Judge has to exercise the discretion in proper way and the ultimate purpose will be for smooth and effective trial in all the suits.

¶24

12. In my considered view, the learned District Judge had not exercised the discretion properly to render complete justice between the parties. The Court must have comprehensive and effective understanding of the rights and interest of the parties in the litigation. The orders passed by the learned District Judge are therefore not in the interest of the parties in all the suits, hence, the orders require interference in these revisions.

¶25

13. For the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.5 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 is set aside. The civil revision

¶26

petition No. 2641 of 2010 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

14. For the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.6 of 2009 in O.S.No.2 of 2009 is set aside. The civil revision petition No. 2642 of 2010 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

15. For the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.7 of 2009 in O.S.No.3 of 2009 is set aside. The civil revision petition No. 2643 of 2010 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

16. The suits O.S.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2009 are directed to be clubbed and the parties shall be permitted to adduce evidence in one suit and they be disposed of by a common judgment.

¶30

_________________ Date: 12.07.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm

¶31

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶32

C.R.P.NOS.2641, 2642 AND 2643 OF 2010

¶33

DATE: 12.07.2010

¶34

[1] (2007) 1 SCC 97

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. Naresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. Naresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajireddy Sudershan Vs The Land Acquisition Officer

Bonu Saraswathi Vs Dandi Kirshna

Shaik Jameel Ali, Vs Miryalkar Gandhi

A.Hampaiah Vs a.Eswaraiah

Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Vs M a Sami Siddiqui

Dummala chandra Rao Vs a.P.State Electricity Board