Delhi High Court
Sumitra Devi And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TR.P(C) No.59/2013
% 11th March, 2014
SUMITRA DEVI AND ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Advocate.
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1(i) This is a petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) for consolidation of two suits.
(ii) First suit is a suit filed by Sh. Mukesh Gupta against the two
defendants, namely DDA (defendant no.1) and Sh. Baljeet Singh (defendant
no.2) In this suit, plaintiff/Sh. Mukesh Gupta, and who is one of the
petitioners before this Court, pleads ownership rights in a plot of 175 sq.
mtrs which is plot no.52 in Pocket-I, Sector-8, Bagdola, Dwarka, New Delhi.
In the suit, it is pleaded that the part of this plot No.52 admeasuring 60 sq
mtrs was encroached by the defendant no.2 namely Sh. Baljeet Singh behind
T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 1 of 5
the back of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and therefore relief of
mandatory injunction was claimed with respect to this portion of about 60 sq
mtrs. Really therefore the suit is a suit for possession of approximately 60
sq mtrs in plot No.52. It be noted that Baljeet Singh and Sumitra Devi are
joint petitioners alongwith Mukesh Gupta in this Section 24 CPC petition.
(iii) The second suit is a suit filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi, and who is
one of the petitioners before me, in which suit she claims to be the owner of
a plot no.110 situated in khasra No.4/4 in village Bagdola, New Delhi which
was originally allotted to one Sh. Brahm Prakash and subsequently
purchased by the plaintiff-Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Sh. Baljeet Singh. The
suit plot in this suit filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi is shown to be an of area of
120 sq mtrs. Smt. Sumitra Devi in her suit refers to a Local Commissioner's
report filed in the earlier suit of Sh. Mukesh Gupta and as to how the Local
Commissioner's report is illegal. In the suit, relief is prayed with respect to
40 sq yds of land stated to be part of plot no.110 situated in khasra no.4/4
which is said not to have been acquired.
2. The suit filed by Sh. Mukesh Gupta is of 2006 vintage whereas
the suit filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi is of 2009 vintage. In the second suit of
Smt. Sumitra Devi of the year 2009, there is also defendant no.3 which is
T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 2 of 5
Gaon Sabha, Bagrola, and which is not a party to the earlier suit filed by Sh.
Mukesh Gupta.
3. Powers under Section 24 CPC are exercised when there are
common questions of facts and law in two suits. Also, it is necessary that
suits must be more or less at similar stages. Also, if issues in one suit are
same as issues in a previous suit, actually it is the second suit which will
have to be stayed under Section 10 CPC. Also, powers under Section 24
CPC are discretionary in order to further justice, and if proceedings under
Section 24 CPC are not bonafidely invoked, Courts can refuse to grant relief.
4. A reference to the plaints of both the suits show that it is not
possible to make out that there is an identity with respect to the plots in
dispute i.e it cannot be said that there are common questions of facts and law
with respect to the same plot. Also, if according to the petitioners in this
Court and who are plaintiffs in the second suit (and they have jointly filed
this petition under Section 24 CPC) that there are identical issues of facts
and law in both the suits, then, surely the second suit which is filed in the
year 2009 can be got stayed under Section 10 CPC.
5. Considering the substantial variance in the facts of the plaints
of both the suits, taken with the fact that there is confusion as to identity and
T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 3 of 5
similarity of the disputed portions of the plots, as also the fact that there
seems to be no apparent reason why a second suit has been filed in the year
2009 by Smt. Sumitra Devi if issues in the second suit of the year 2009 are
same as in the first suit because in such a situation the second suit would
have to be stayed under Section 10 CPC, I do not think that powers under
Section 24 CPC should be exercised in the facts of the case such as the
present. Also, I find that in both the suit plaints effectively possession is
asked for different sizes of plots. Whereas in the suit filed by Sh. Mukesh
Gupta possession is asked for of 60 sq mtrs, in the suit filed by Smt. Sumitra
Devi possession is asked for of 40 sq yds.
6. It is relevant to note that Delhi Development Authority is a
defendant in both the suits and is appearing before me through counsel and
opposing the consolidation of both the suits including for the reasons as
stated above and also that both the suits are before Courts of different
pecuniary jurisdiction. It is also argued that there seems to be some unstated
purpose in getting suits consolidated otherwise there is no reason why
separate plaintiffs in separate suits would seek consolidation.
T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 4 of 5
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and
the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 11, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
