Mohd. Sher Nabi Chaman vs Delhi Development Authority
2014 Latest Caselaw 1766 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         TR.P (C)No. 47/2013 & CM No.8414/2013

%                                                          1st April, 2014

MOHD. SHER NABI CHAMAN                             ......Petitioner
                  Through:               None.


                          VERSUS

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY               ...... Respondent
                Through:  Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.     This is a petition under Section 24 CPC for consolidation of the three

suits as stated below:-


       (A) Suit no.326/2007 (new no.CS-336/2011, M-9/2011, titled as
       Mohd. Sher Nabi Chaman Vs. DDA (Previously pending in the court
       of Ms. Anjali Mahajan, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi)
       now transferred to the court of Shri Jagdish Kumar, Ld. ASCJ (East
       District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide order dated 04.02.202013
       passed by this Hon'ble Court in Transfer P.(C) no.2/2013 titled as
       DDA Vs. Sher Nabi Chaman (fixed for 15.07.2013).



       (B) Suit No.129/2005 (Renumbered as 297/2007) titled as Mohd.
       Sher Nabi Chaman Vs. M.S.Sharma & Ors., pending in the court of
TR. P(C) 47/2013                                                             Page 1 of 3
         Shri Jagdish Kumar, Civil Judge, (East District), Karkardooma
        Courts, Delhi (fixed for 27.05.2013).

        (C) Suit no. 49/2011 titled as Mohd. Sher Nabi Chaman Vs. Dy.
        Commissioner & Ors. wherein DDA has been made party as
        Defendant no.3, pending in the court of Shri Anil Kumar, Ld.
        Additional Senior Civil Judge, North East Distt., Karkardooma
        Courts, Delhi (fixed for 15.07.2013).



2.      In order to exercise powers under Section 24 CPC, inter alia, the

following factors have to be seen:-


(i)     Petitioner must file pleadings of all the suits, and which are necessary

to know what are the common questions of law and fact in all the suits as

also whether all the parties to the suits are common.


(ii)    What are the stages of the suits in order to know whether powers

under Section 24 CPC are being bonafidely invoked, or are being invoked

for an ulterior purpose.


(iii)   Whether it is just and convenient and in the interest of justice to

consolidate the cases which are sought to be consolidated.


3.      A reference to this petition under Section 24 CPC shows that first of

all complete pleadings of all the three suits have not been filed. Also, the

petition does not state as to how and what common questions of law and fact
TR. P(C) 47/2013                                                             Page 2 of 3
 arise in all the three suits. More importantly, as per the plaints which are

filed of the suits, the parties in all the three suits are not the same and there

are different party defendants in the suits. The petition also does not state

what are the respective stages of the suits for this Court to know whether the

provision of Section 24 CPC is or is not being bonafidely invoked.


4.     Finally, it is seen that earlier a transfer petition being Transfer Petition

(C) no.2/2013 was filed by the respondent herein i.e DDA and which was

allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 4.2.2013, and allowing of

the present petition would amount to setting aside of this order dated

4.2.2013.


5.     In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the petition, and

the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




APRIL 01, 2014                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib