Back
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA
Nisawar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Bari – Respondent
Key Points: - The trial court rightly rejected consolidation of two suits as the issues and evidence are not common. (!) (!) - The primary dispute in Suit No. 864 of 2018 is title to land; the subsequent Suit No. 920 of 2018 concerns cancellation of Power of Attorney and sale-deed, with a separate main dispute about the Power of Attorney. (!) (!) (!) - Consolidation is not warranted because the essential issues, parties, and evidence differ; Krishna Kanhaiya Gupta and Amardeep are distinguishable authorities. (!) (!) - The Power of Attorney issue is between Abdul Bari and the Power of Attorney holder, not directly between the revisionist plaintiffs and Abdul Bari. (!) - The revision is dismissed; there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. (!) - The court distinguishes the cited precedents and limits their applicability to this case. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists.
2. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 9.8.2019 passed on Application 73Ga filed by the revisionist in Suit No. 920 of 2018, Abdul Bari v. Nisawar Ali under Order IV-A, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C., for consolidating the suit with Suit No. 864 of 2018 filed by the revisionist. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the order impugned.
3. Suit No. 864 of 2018 has been filed by the revisionists for permanent, injunction claiming on the basis of a registered sale-deed executed in their favour by Israt Jalal Khan, Power of Attorney of Abdul Bari.
4. Suit No. 920 of 2018 has been filed by Abdul Bari for cancellation of the Power of Attorney dated 27.8.2012 allegedly executed by him in favour of Israt Jalal Khan as also for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by the alleged power of attorney holder.
5. It appears that the ground in this suit is that Israt Jalal Khan had been granted a Power of Attorney for a period of six months only to manage the property and that he had not been granted the power to execute a sale-deed.
6. The contention of Counsel for the revisionist is t
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
