Saifuddin vs Kiran Dhara
2023 Latest Caselaw 3019 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3019 Jhar
Judgement Date : 19 August, 2023

Jharkhand High Court

Saifuddin vs Kiran Dhara on 19 August, 2023

         THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(C) No. 2442 of 2018
                                       ------

1.Saifuddin

2. Manzurul Hassan .... .... Petitioner(s).

                                        Versus
         1. Kiran Dhara
         2. Md. Jamaluddin                                           .... .... Respondents(s)
                              ------
       CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                              ------

For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : M/s Kanishka Deo, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate

09/19.08.2023 Heard the parties.

2. In this application the order dated 27.03.2018 passed in Title Suit No.169 of 2015 is under challenge. By the said order the learned trial court has dismissed the petition filed by the defendant No.2 and 3 (petitioners herein) under Section 10 of the C.P.C.

3. After hearing the parties, I find that Title Suit No.169 of 2015 was filed by the respondent herein before the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur praying for following relief;

(i) For a decree for declaration that the sale deed bearing no.7125, dated 24.12.2012, registered at District Sub-registration office at Jamshedpur executed by Defendant no.1 (who is proforma respondent in the writ petition) in favour of Defendant no.2 and 3 (who are the petitioners in the writ petition) described in Schedule B below is illegal, void, inoperative without consideration and has not conferred any title in favour of defendant no.2 and 3 is liable to be cancelled.

(ii) For a decree be passed cancelling the said registered sale deed bearing Deed no.7125 dated 24.12.2012 described in Schedule B below.

(iii) For a decree for permanent injunction may kindly be passed restraining the Defendant no.2 and 3 from interfering with the possession of Plaintiff over Schedule-A property or portion thereof by any means whatsoever on the strength of said registered deed of sale bearing no.7125 dated 24.12.2012 or otherwise.

          (iv)    For the cost of the suit.

                   (v)     For any other relief or reliefs to which the Plaintiff may be found
                           entitled in law and equity.

4. Another suit being Eviction Suit No.66 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner herein, on 01.05.2015 praying for the following relief;

(i) For a decree for declaration that the plaintiffs are absolute and lawful owner of the suit premises fully as described in schedule below as defendant was the licensee under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises fully described in schedule below and for a decree for recovery of possession of the schedule suit property in favour of the plaintiffs, after evicting the defendant from schedule below suit property through the process of law.

(ii) For a decree for the cost of the suit.

(iii) For any other relief/s to which the plaintiffs may be found to be entitled under law or equity.

5. The Eviction Suit No.66 of 2015 was filed prior to Title Suit No.169 of 2015 and one of the suit was for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff and also for eviction and another was for cancellation of sale deed. A petition was filed under Section 10 of the C.P.C to stay the subsequent suit, which is Title Suit No.169 of 2015, wherein a declaration was sought for to the effect that sale deed was illegal void and in- operative. The Trial Court has rejected the petition under Section 10 of the C.P.C holding that cause of action of both the suits are different and the parties are not same. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

6. After going through the record, I find that the subject matter of the both the suits are same though some parties are different. Both the parties are claiming title over the same suit property. It is also been submitted that both the suits are pending before different courts. Thus, I am of the opinion that there is high probability that there can be a conflicting judgments, if both the suit are heard by different courts. Thus, exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, I direct the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur to take steps so that the Eviction Suit No.66 of 2015 and Title Suit No.169 of 2015 be heard and disposed of by the same court. Court will hear both the suits simultaneously and will dispose the same accordingly.