Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
Rajesh Kumar Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Poonam Devi - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 485 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2021
Consolidation - Jurisdictional Conflict - UP Act 57 of 1976, Section 5
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the rejection of their application for consolidation of two suits, one for permanent injunction and the other for rent and eviction. The courts rejected the consolidation application citing different jurisdictions, parties, and subject matters of the suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previously instituted suit sought permanent injunction, while the subsequent suit was for rent and eviction, and both were pending in different courts with different reliefs. The court also referred to the provisions of UP Act 57 of 1976, Section 5, which allows for consolidation of suits and proceedings in the same court if it is expedient in the interest of justice.
Issues: Jurisdictional conflict, consolidation of suits, different reliefs sought in the suits
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suits were pending in different courts seeking different reliefs, and the Judge Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the original suit for injunction. The court also emphasized the distinction between an original suit and an SCC suit, as well as the provisions of Section 5 of UP Act 57 of 1976.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for lacking merits.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord and perused the record.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.2.2020 passed by J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (S.D.), Deoria and the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the District Judge, Deoria.
3. By the impugned order dated 17.2.2020 application being paper no. 110Ga filed by the petitioner-tenant herein for consolidation of two suits, being Original Suit No. 107 of 2013 (Rajesh vs. Poonam) filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction with SCC Suit No. 06 of 2017, has been rejected on the ground that the Courts are different and the parties are also different and the subject matter of the suit is also different. It was also noticed that SCC suit can be heard by Judge Small Causes Court only and therefore, consolidation cannot be permitted and accordingly, the said application was rejected. Revision filed against the same was also dismissed.
4. Challenging the impugned orders, submission of learned Senior Counsel is that subject matter of the suit is same and raising of wall A and B as indicated in the suit for injunction is substantial in nature and involved in both the cases. He has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Anandan Gupta vs. Navin Agarwal and others, 1984 (2) ARC 447.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the courts are having different jurisdictions and both the suits cannot be tried together and the parties are also different. It is further submitted that subject matter of the suit is also different as in the original suit prayer for permanent injunction has been made and the SCC suit has been filed for rent and eviction, therefore, application filed in SCC suit for consolidation of suits has rightly been rejected by the courts below. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Swaroop Sinha vs. Smt. Manorama Singh, AIR 1981 Alld. 230 and on a judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge in Ram Narain Gupta (since deceased) and others vs. Hari Om Agarwal and another, 2012 (1) ARC 664.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. It is not in dispute that previously instituted suit is the Original Suit No. 107 of 2013 seeking relief of permanent injunction and subsequently instituted suit is the SCC suit No. 6 of 2017 filed by the respondent-landlord herein rent and eviction.
8. Order IV-A inserted in State of UP vide UP Act 57 of 1976, Section 5 with effect form 1.1.1977 provides as under:
9. The distinction between an original suit and SCC suit has been taken note in paragraph 10, 11, 15, 16 and 21 of Ram Narain Gupta (supra), which are quoted as under:
"15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes.--(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes:
Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupatio
Jurisdictional conflict and the distinction between original suits and SCC suits, as well as the provisions of Section 5 of UP Act 57 of 1976, were central to the court's decision.
Consolidation of suits under Sec. 151 of CPC is permissible for practical reasons, convenience, and to prevent conflicting judgments, expenses, and delay, while retaining the separate identity of the....
Stay of suit – For applicability of Section 10 of C.P.C. there must be complete identity of entire two suits – Section 10 was never intended to take away inherent power of Court to consolidate for in....
The central legal point established is that when two suits involve the same property, parties, and similar evidence, they should be consolidated to avoid conflicting judgments and serve the interest ....
The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
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
