M/S. Nu-Tech Security Printers vs M/S. Santhi Agency
2009 Latest Caselaw 4200 Del

 *                   HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

 +                     I.A. No.11661/2006 in CS(OS) 408/1989

                                Judgment reserved on: 14th October, 2009

 %                              Judgment decided on      : 20th October, 2009

      M/S. NU-TECH. SECURITY PRINTERS               ..... Plaintiff
                     Through : Mr. J.S. Bakshi and Mr. S.S. Sobti, Advs.


                     versus


      M/S. SANTHI AGENCY                                    ..... Defendant
                    Through :         Mr. Anil K. Kher, Sr. Adv. with
                                      Mr. D.R. Bhatia and Mr. S.S. Pandit,
                                      Advs.

 Coram:

  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
    be allowed to see the judgment?                            No

 2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                         No

 3. Whether the judgment should be reported                    No

      in the Digest?

 MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the application under Section 24

read with Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of defendants No. 3 to 7

praying that the three suits pending now in the Court of Smt. Shail

Jain (two suits) and Sh. Dinesh Bhatt be withdrawn from the said

courts and be tried along with the present pending suit bearing CS(OS)

No.408/1989.

2. The facts are that originally the four suits were filed by the

plaintiff. The detail of which is as under:-

CS(OS) No.408/1989 1 of 5

(a) The present suit being CS(OS) No.408/1989 for recovery of Rs.20,29,634.55;

(b) Suit No.409/1989 for recovery of Rs.5,31,873.01 titled as M/s. NuTech Security Printers vs. M/s. Ram Agency and others;

(c) Suit No.405/1989 for recovery of Rs.7,45,975.15 titled as M/s. K.L. Shroff vs. M/s. Ram Agency and others; and

(d) Suit No.407/1989 for recovery of Rs.3,39,2953.85 titled as M/s. K.L. Shroff vs. M/s. Shanti Agency and others.

3. The defendants No.3 to 7 filed their written statement in the

matter.

4. Due to increase of pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court

the suits mentioned above as (b) to (d) were transferred to the court of

District Judge as the amount claimed in the suits was less than

Rs.20,00,000/-.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for defendants No.3 to 7 that

earlier the plaintiff moved an application in the year 1991 praying for

consolidation of all the suits when pending in this court being I.A.

No.9009/1991 and the following orders were passed:-

"12.09.1991

Pr.: Sh. Chetan Sharma for plaintiff.

I.A. No.9009/91 (App. On behalf of Plaintiff u/S 151 CPC)

This application has been filed on behalf of the plaitniff praying for consolidation of the suit bearing no.409/89 (titled M/s. NuTech Security Printers Vs. Ram Agency & Others); suit No.408/89 (titled M/s. Nu-Tech Security Printers Vs. M/s. Shanthi Agency & Others) and suit No.407/89 (titled Sh. K.L. Shroff Vs. M/s. Shanthi Agency & Others).

Notice in I.A. to issue to the defendants through counsel for appearances before me on the next date i.e. CS(OS) No.408/1989 2 of 5 18.9.91, the date already fixed. Process fee within two weeks."

6. It has been argued that in view of the order passed on 12 th

September, 1991 and 15th November, 1991 in order to avoid the

conflict of judgments the present application has been filed and the

same is liable to the allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have not denied the fact that

the evidence in the suits mentioned above as (b) to (d) has already

been concluded and these are listed for final disposal.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also referred order dated

11th July, 2008 where the court ordered that the pendency of the

present application shall not come in the way of competent courts in

proceedings to hear the arguments in the pending suits before the

Additional District Judge, however the judgments shall not be

pronounced.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in view of

this order no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if all the three

cases mentioned above as (b) to (d) pending in the District Court be

withdrawn from the courts and be consolidated with the present suit

and decided together.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has

argued that parties in the three suits pending before the Additional

District Judge are different. Further he has argued that the suit

pending before District Court are at the stage of final arguments and

on the other hand in the suit pending in this court the evidence is yet to

be recorded.

CS(OS) No.408/1989 3 of 5

11. Mr. Bakshi, Advocate for the plaintiff argued that the

application is not maintainable and it bears no merit as the same has

been filed at the belated stage. He submits that earlier when the

application for consolidation was filed by the plaintiff all the suits

were pending in the High Court itself. Since all the cases are at

different stages and the subject matter of the suits are also on the basis

of different documents/bills, therefore, the prayer made in this

application be rejected.

12. After considering the rival submissions of all the parties I am

of the considered opinion that the present application under Section 24

CPC filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and is not

maintainable for the following reasons:-

(i) That the evidence in all the three suits pending before

the Additional District Judges has already been recorded and

now they are fixed for final disposal on 27th October, 2009

and 11th November, 2009 before Ms. Shail Jain, Additional

District Judge for final arguments and third suit is listed on

4th November, 2009 before Sh. Dinesh Bhatt, Additional

District Judge, Delhi for final disposal; on the other hand, in

the suit pending in High Court the evidence is yet to be

recorded;

(ii) It is not denied by the parties that although some of the

parties are common, however the cause of action and

documents involved in the four suits relate to different

transactions. Therefore, in my considered view the suits

CS(OS) No.408/1989 4 of 5 pending in the District Court can be decided as per their own

merits. At this stage, the said prayer can not be granted.

(iii) As far as the present suit is concerned learned counsel

for defendants No.3 to 7 has argued that the plaintiff has not

produced the evidence in time, therefore, it is all the more

feasible that the suits mentioned above as (b) to (d) may be

withdrawn from the court and consolidated and be

considered with the present suit. I do not agree with the

contention of defendants No.3 to 7 even as it appears from

the record, since the present application filed by the

defendants No.3 to 7 is pending for the last more than three

years, therefore, none of the parties has taken any care to

proceed further in the matter on merit.

13. For the reasons mentioned above, the present application is

not maintainable and same is dismissed. Order passed on 11 th July,

2008 wherein the direction given to the competent court not to

pronounce the judgment is vacated.

14. List the matter on 25th November, 2009 before the Joint

Registrar for direction.

 OCTOBER 20, 2009                            MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
 nn




CS(OS) No.408/1989                                                    5 of 5