Back
High Court Of Orissa
D. P. Mohapatra, J.
DR.GURU PRASAD MOHANTY - Appellant
Versus
BIJOY KUMAR DAS - Respondent
Civil Revn. 682 Of 1983
Decided On : 03/26/1984
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 10 - CONSOLIDATION OF SUITS - JURISDICTION OF COURT - COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT CONSOLIDATION OF SUITS EVEN IF INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 10 ARE SATISFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Two suits were filed between the same parties involving common questions and a dispute over the same property. In one suit, the plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of the property, while in the other suit, the plaintiff sought eviction of the defendants from the property. The trial court rejected the petitioners' application for a stay of the second suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and directed analogous hearing of both suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of Section 10 of the CPC are mandatory in nature, but they do not denude the courts of their jurisdiction to follow any other procedure that would serve the ends of justice. The court further held that the object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, subject matter, and relief. The court also held that the principle of consolidation of suits is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation, and that these objects are not in conflict with the principles of Section 10 of the CPC, but rather in aid of the object of the said section.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 10 of the CPC are mandatory in nature and denude the courts of their jurisdiction to follow any other procedure that would serve the ends of justice? 2. Whether the object of Section 10 of the CPC is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, subject matter, and relief? 3. Whether the principle of consolidation of suits is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation, and whether these objects are in conflict with the principles of Section 10 of the CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 10 of the CPC are mandatory in nature, but they do not denude the courts of their jurisdiction to follow any other procedure that would serve the ends of justice. 2. The object of Section 10 of the CPC is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, subject matter, and relief. 3. The principle of consolidation of suits is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation, and these objects are not in conflict with the principles of Section 10 of the CPC, but rather in aid of the object of the said section.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the two suits expeditiously within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-10-1983 by the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Tille Suit No. 149/494 of 1981/1983 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 10, Civil P. C. The question that arises for consideration is whether in a case where the ingredients of Section 10, Civil P. C. are satisfied, has the Court no jurisdiction to direct consolidation of the two suits? The two suits in question in the Present case are Title Suit No. 233 of 1931 and Title Suit No. 149/494 of 1981/1983. The former was filed on 3-10-1981 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Cuttack and the latter in the Court of the First Munsif, Cuttack on 16-11-1981. By order dated 5-7-1983 of the District Judge, Cuttack Title Suit No. 233 of 1981 was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge, Cuttack. Again by 12-9-1983 both the suits were transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. On 15-4-1982 the petitioners (defendants in the said suit) filed an application under Section 10, Civil P. C. in Title Suit No. 149/494 of 1981/83 for stay of the further proceedings of the said suit till disposal of the Title Suit No. 233 of 1981. On the other hand, the opposite party (plaintiff in the suit) filed an application on 27-9-1983 for analogous hearing of the suit with Title Suit No. 233 of 1981. Each party filed objection to the petition filed by the other. The trial Court after hearing the parties on their respective petitions, by his order dated 1-10-1983 rejected the application of the petitioners for stay under Section 10, Civil P. C. and accepted the application filed by the opposite party for analogous hearing of both the suits. This order of the learned Subordinate Judge is impugned in this revision petition.
( 2 ) THE main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 10 Civil P. C. is mandatory in nature and the trial Court having found that the ingredients of the said section are satisfied in this case was bound to pass an order of stay in the terms of the provisions of the said section and the Court had no jurisdiction to direct analogous hearing of the two suits. The contention on behalf of the opposite party on the other hand is that even if the ingredients under Section 10, Civil P. C. are satisfied in this case, it is still open to the trial Court to consolidate the two suits and to direct analogous hearing of the same in the ends of justice.
( 3 ) AT this stage it will be helpful to give in short the case of the respective parties in the two suits. In Title Suit No. 223 of 1981 Jayadip Mohanty, a minor (petitioner 2) in this revision is the sole plaintiff and the opposite party in this revision is defendant 9 therein. In the said suit the plaintiff prays, inter alia, for a decree for specific performance of the contract executed between 5-4-1976 and 12-4-1976 by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in his favour and further prays that defendants 5 to 8 and defendants 1 to 4 be directed to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the 'a' Schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 within a time fixed by the Court after obtaining permission from the Khasmahal authority and in case defendants 1 to 4 fail to execute and register the sale deed within the time granted by the Court the latter may execute and register a sale deed on behalf of the defendants 1 to 4 after obtaining the necessary permission for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 11 not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and for restraining the defendants 1 to 4 not to transfer the property in favour of defendants 5 to 9. The property described in schedule 'a' to the plaint is District-Cuttack, Mouza-Cantomnent, Khata No. 335, plot No. 223, Pattadari area A. I 658 decimals, Bungalow Holding No. 717, new No. 849, Ward No. 7, Cuttack Municipality. The gist of the plaintiff's case as narrated in the plaint is that there was an agreem
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
