Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 31460
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
ARUN KUMAR JAIN – Appellant
Versus
PADAM CHAND JAIN – Respondent
TR.P.(C.) 52/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Alka Dwivedi, Ms. Tanya Kumari
For the Respondents:Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Naresh Gupta, Ms. Reema K., Ms. Muskaan Mehra, Ms. S. Sharma
The court held that consolidation of suits is not warranted when distinct parties and issues exist, emphasizing the discretion of the court to prevent complications.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 24 and 151 - Transfer petition seeking consolidation of two civil suits regarding common property - The petitioner argued for transfer to ensure effective adjudication, while the respondent contended the suits involved different parties and properties - Court found no merit in consolidation, noting distinct issues and stage of proceedings in each suit - Transfer petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 4, 21, 23)
(B) Consolidation of suits - Court discretion - Factors to consider include commonality of issues and parties, and stage of proceedings - Consolidation may create complications or prejudice rights of parties. (Paras 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to transfer a suit for possession pending before an ADJ to this Court for consolidation with a prior suit for partition, both related to a property. The petitioner claimed similarity in issues and parties, while the respondent argued against consolidation due to differences in parties and properties involved.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the suits involved different properties and issues, thus consolidation was not warranted.
Issues: The main issues were whether the two suits could be consolidated given the differences in parties and properties, and whether the transfer petition should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the distinct nature of the suits, along with the different stages of proceedings, justified the dismissal of the transfer petition.
Result: Transfer petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer petition for consolidation of suits concerning common property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner argues for consolidation due to identical parties and issues. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent counters with differences in parties, properties, and issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. dispute on differences in issues and evidence required in both suits. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's analysis on merits of transfer petition and consolidation of suits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. court dismisses transfer petition, no grounds found for consolidation. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The instant transfer petition under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [„CPC‟] has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking transfer of the civil suit bearing CS No. 872/2023, titled as „Padam Chand Jain v. Arun Kumar Jain‟, pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, [„learned ADJ‟] to the original side of this Court and for consolidation of the said suit with a civil suit for partition etc., bearing CS (OS) No. 635/2019, titled as „Arun Kumar Jain v. Padam Chand Jain & Ors‟ pending before this Court, pertaining to one common property in both the suits, being a Shop and a godown situated at the Ground Floor of the property bearing Municipal No. 1976, Katra Kaushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 [„subject property‟].
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 21.01.2020, in the prior instituted suit i.e. CS (OS) No. 635/2019, this Court had granted an order of status quo, in favour of the petitioner herein, pertaining to the subject property. The order passed by this Court, reads as under:
“Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant no. 1 states that properties at serial no. (iii) & (iv) have been sold by the mother of the parties during her lifetime. As far as properties at serial no. (i) and (ii) are concerned, Mr. Gupta states that defendant no. I does not propose to interfere with the status quo regarding the nature, and character, title and possession of the suit property. However this is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendant no. 1 to file legal proceedings against the plaintiff for eviction from a portion of the property at serial no. (i). The said proceedings, if instituted, will be adjudicated on their own merits. As far as the property at serial no. (v) is concerned, Mr. Gupta states that it is tenanted property in the possession of defendant no. 1. Although there is some dispute as to the name in which the tenancy stands, Mr. Gupta undertakes that the possession of the said premises will not be parted with.”
(Emphasis supplied)
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the first suit, i.e. CS (OS) No. 635/2019 pending before this Court, the petitioner herein had inter-alia challenged the ownership of the respondent herein/defendant no. 1 therein, qua the subject property, by seeking a Decree of Declaration with respect to a Gift Deed dated 05.09.2005, executed by Smt. Seva Devi in his favour, as null and void, on the ground that the said document was wholly illegal. It is stated that in the subsequently instituted suit, i.e. C.S. No. 872/2023 before the learned ADJ, the respondent herein/plaintiff therein has inter-alia, sought a decree of possession in his favour, pertaining to the subject property on the strength of the said Gift Deed.
4. It is therefore prayed that the subsequently instituted suit, bearing CS No. 872/2023, be transferred and consolidated with the prior instituted suit bearing CS (OS) No. 635/2019, to ensure that there is no conflict of judicial decisions, and the same would also pave the way for effective adjudication of the common controversy, having arisen between the parties.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the parties to the two suits are closely related family members, and though there are several defendan
