Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.C.JAIN - Appellant
Versus
BINDESHWARI DEVI - Respondent
Civil 335 of 1997
Decided On : 04/24/1997
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a revision filed by the defendant against an order that closed their evidence, which was subsequently allowed by the court (!) (!) .
The proceedings highlight procedural irregularities and lapses in the handling of multiple suits involving the same parties and subject matter, particularly concerning the consolidation of suits (!) (!) (!) .
There are two suits pending between the same parties, with overlapping issues related to possession, damages, and execution of a will, which have been subject to consolidation and order of trial (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that consolidation of suits is a judge-made jurisdiction exercised to avoid multiplicity, conflicting decisions, delays, and unnecessary costs, and is based on inherent powers under the Civil Procedure Code (!) (!) (!) .
Consolidation can be ordered when there is a common question of law or fact, or when the rights to relief arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, even without the parties’ consent (!) (!) .
The exercise of consolidation powers is discretionary and depends on whether it would serve the ends of justice without causing prejudice or complications at trial (!) (!) .
The court discusses different types of judicial directions related to multiple suits, including analogous hearing, full consolidation, and trial consolidation, each with distinct procedural implications (!) (!) (!) .
The importance of proper procedural steps for consolidation, including the necessity of prior orders before evidence recording and clarity on whether evidence recorded in one suit can be read in another, is underscored (!) (!) (!) .
When suits are consolidated based on consent, explicit recording of such consent and procedural clarity are essential to avoid irregularities (!) (!) .
The court permits the defendant to examine witnesses and adduce additional evidence, with appropriate directions to ensure that evidence recorded in one suit is considered in the other, and that the trial proceeds efficiently (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the evidence already recorded in one suit can be read and used in the other suit, provided proper procedures are followed, and that separate judgments and decrees are necessary unless the suits are fully merged (!) .
The revision is allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the defendant's application is set aside, with directions for the trial court to proceed accordingly, including appointing a date for recording the defendant’s evidence and ensuring proper procedural conduct (!) (!) .
The court clarifies that the directions issued are case-specific and not intended as a precedent, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness and judicial discretion in consolidation matters (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
( 1 ) BY order dated 8. 9. 1996 the evidence of the defendant-petioner was directed to be closed. The petitioner sought for reviewing and recalling of the order with leave to adduce evidence. By the impugned order the said prayer made by the defendant has been refused. The aggrieved defendant has come up in revision.
( 2 ) THE present case betrays utter disregard of certain rules of procedure at different stages of proceedings in the hearing of the suits and consequent failure of justice. It appears that the two suits pending between the parties have bee dealt with at different stages by various judicial officers. Unfortunately, either none was aware of or none was enlightened by the learned counsel appearing for the parties with the settled practice and procedure governing consolidation of suits and trial of the suits thereafter. Casualties have taken place at more stages then one. While demonstrating the same I seize this opportunity for recapitulating the judge-made-law on consolidation of suits and crystalise the same so as to guide the members of the subordinate judiciary for future.
( 3 ) FIRST the facts in brief to the extent necessary for deciding the questions arising for decision herein.
3. 1 There are two suits filed between the same parties and still pending. Suit No. 348/80 (new No 7/94) was filed on 14. 5. 80 by Bindeswari Devi widow of Maj. BN Bhargava, the plaintiff, against Sagar Chand Jain, the defendant. The plaintiff claims to be owner of the suit premises and alleges the defendant having taken unlawful possession of a room on the second flooron 27-10-78. The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for possession of the said room and damages at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month for the period 27. 10. 78 to 27. 11. 78. That suit registered as suit No. 338/78 was decreed on 20-10-1979. Appeal preferred against the decree was dismissed. The defendant did not deliver possession over the property. In the background of the abovesaid facts this suit was filed on 16. 4. 1980 for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the aforesaid room for the period 27. 11. 1978 to 27. 3. 80 at the rate of Rs 100 per month.
3. 2. In the written statement, the main plea on which the suit is being contested by the defendant is that the defendant had paid Rs. 544. 50 and delivered possession of the disputed room to the plaintiff on 29. 8. 80 in full and final satisfaction of decree in Suit No. 338/78. The plaintiff assured the defendant of not initiating any other civil or criminal action against the defendant. In view of the receipt dated 29. 8. 80 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant the suit did not lie.
3. 3 On 3. 3. 81 the trial court framed following issues on the pleadings of the parties : @subpara = 1. Whether any cause of action does not exist in favour of the plaintiff as alleged ? @subpara = 2. Whether the suit has become infructuous in view of the objection in para 2 of written statement ? @subpara = 3. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages as alleged in view of paras 1 and 4 of written statement as preliminary objections and on merits respectively ?
3. 4 Relief.
3. 4 The court directed the defendant to open the case and lead evidence in view of the onus lying on him.
3. 5 The defendant s evidence commenced on 2. 9. 81 and closed on 25. 2. 85. On 22. 1. 86, the plaintiff opened her evidence which continued being recorded on 21. 4. 86 and also on 19. 8. 93, on which date the evidence was closed.
3. 6 It appears that Bindeswari died on 15. 9. 84. She appears to have executed a will in favour of her daughter-in-law Satyawati Bhargava and grandsons Yoginder Nath Pradip and Narinder Nath. On 27. 2. 85, these four legal heirs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3600. 00 as damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 100 per month for the period 27. 2. 82 to 26. 2. 85. It is stated in the plaint that suit for recovery of damages for the period 27. 11. 78 to 27. 3. 80 was pendin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
