Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sweera Rani vs Dr. Tarun Dua on 20 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 3285 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SWEERA RANI W/O GOPALDAS KHATRI,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
NIHAL BIHAR 50 FUTA ROAD KA AKHRI
MAKAN DELHI (DELHI)
2. RADHESHYAM KHATRI S/O GOPALDAS
KHATRI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O NIHAL BIHAR 50 FUTA ROAD KA
AKHRI MAKAN DELHI (DELHI)
3. SHRIRAM KHATRI S/O GOPALDAS KHATRI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O VAISHALI NAGAR, DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. JYOTI SACHDEV W/O AJAY SACHDEV D/O
GOPALDAS KHATRI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NILL R/O VAISHALI NAGAR,
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. ANITA MAHAJAN W/O SURESH MAHAJAN
D/O GOPAL DAS KHATRI, AGED ABOUT 54
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: NILL R/O JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT. SHASHI GROVER W/O BASANT GROVER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL
R/O JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI AKHILESH JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DR. TARUN DUA S/O LATE SHRI LEKHRAJ DUA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
Signature Not Verified
SAN
MAAGANJ WARD NO.2, DUA PARISAR, SAGAR
ROAD, DAMOH, DISTRICT DAMOH M.P.
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.09.20 19:10:47 IST (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
2. SHIVANSH DUA S/O LATE SHRI JAIRAJ DUA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O MAAGANJ WARD
NO.2, DUA PARISAR, SAGAR ROAD, DAMOH,
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. IQBAL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ISHWAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O GUARD LINE,
OPPOSITE DR. ABHAY JAIN, DAMOH DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KAUSTUBH SHANKER JHA, ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is filed by the petitioners/defendants being aggrieved of order Annexure P/5
dated 21.7.2022 passed by learned III Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil
Judge Class-I, Damoh consolidating three civil suits for eviction filed by the
plaintiffs/respondents bearing Civil Suit No.3A/2015, Civil Suit No.4A/2015 &
Civil Suit No.6A/2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in M/s.Anurag & Company & Another
versus Additional District Judge & Others AIR 2006 Rajasthan 119
wherein in Paragraph 28, it is observed thus:-
''28. The upshot of aforesaid discussion of judgments is that
some of the relevant circumstances for consolidating the civil suits
are as follows:-
(i) The parties are substantially the same.
Signature Not Verified
(ii) Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the
SAN
issues arising for decision in two suits.
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.09.20 19:10:47 IST
(iii) Common evidence is to be led, if parties are substantially
the same, if only one party is common then burden of proof of facts
in issue will be on different person and no common evidence can be
led.
(iv) The consolidation in the aforesaid circumstances will fulfill
the object of consolidation. Any other circumstances may be relevant
then also the object of consolidation will be decisive for passing
appropriate order.''
Learned counsel for the respondents in his turn places reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills versus
Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85 wherein in Paragraph No.12, it is
observed that the ratio of law is that "unless substantially prohibited, the Civil
Court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Consolidation
of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from
multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial
and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the
two suits being consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are relieved of
the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice
over in the two suits at two different trials".
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills versus
Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra) as well as the judgment of Hon'ble High Court
of Rajasthan in M/s.Anurag & Company & Another versus Additional
Signature Not Verified
SAN
District Judge & Others (supra), it is evident that the circumstances for
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.09.20 19:10:47 IST
consolidation mentioned in Paragraph No.28 of M/s.Anurag & Company &
Another versus Additional District Judge & Others (supra) have been
clarified in Paragraph No.29 in the following words:-"29.Keeping in view the
aforesaid relevant circumstances and object of consolidation, there is no
substantial similarity between the parties and issues involved as the present suits
are between different parties wherein cause of actions arose on different dates,
burden of proof is on the different person and further the consent given by the
respondent/plaintiff for simultaneous hearing of the four civil suits pending
before the same Court, which will totally eliminate the chances of conflicting
judgments. I am of the further view that no other relevant circumstances exist
for consolidation of civil suits and non-consolidation will not defeat aforesaid
object".
Thus, in M/s.Anurag & Company & Another versus Additional
District Judge & Others (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has
upheld the judgment of the Trial Court in not consolidating the civil suits but
when the facts of the present case are examined then it is apparent that the
plaintiffs are same. They have filed suits for eviction on the same ground, i.e.
bonafide need and expansion of their premises for certain purposes like parking
and clinic and the cause of actions too arose though against three different sets
of defendants qua petitioners before this Court but on the same date and to
prove that issue by evidence, the burden lies on the plaintiffs and, therefore, the
law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in M/s.Anurag &
Company & Another versus Additional District Judge & Others (supra)
is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Merely the parties being different is not sufficient, while infact the ratio is
Signature Not Verified
SAN
that the issues should be different, the cause of actions should be different and
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.09.20 19:10:47 IST
the evidence, which is required to be adduced for proving those issues, should
be different. In that view of the matter, I find no illegality or arbitrariness in the
impugned order Annexure P/5 dated 21.7.2022 passed by learned III Additional
Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Damoh calling for interference in
supervisory jurisdiction of this High Court keeping in view the pronouncement
of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills
versus Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra).
Accordingly, this Miscellenous Petition fails and is dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Trial
Court be directed to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.
The aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the respondents is not
opposed by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a
period of six months from the date receipt of certified copy of the order being
passed today without affording any undue opportunity of adjournment(s) to any
of the parties.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.09.20 19:10:47 IST
