SHEO NARAIN & OTHERS versus 3RD A.D.J.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Sheo Narain & Others v. 3rd A.D.J. - WRIT - C No. 957 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 1643 (1 February 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.28)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.957 of 1986

Sheo Narain and another  vs.  IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri and another

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.  No one has appeared for the contesting respondent.  Petitioner filed O.S. No.69 of 1982 against Sone Lal -respondent no.2 for cancellation of sale deed dated 6.1.1962 and for injunction.  Thereafter Sone Lal - respondent no.2 filed O.S. No.177 of 1982 against the petitioners for partition and separate possession of the same property.  Petitioners filed an application in O.S. No.177 of 1982 under Section 10 C.P.C. for staying the proceedings of the said suit until decision of O.S. No.69 of 1982.  IInd Additional Munsif, Mainpuri through order dated 12.11.1982 stayed the proceedings of the later suit.  At that time the earlier suit was pending before another Munsif. Against order dated 12.11.1982, respondent no.2 filed civil revision 102 of 1983.   IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri through order dated 9.10.1985 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 12.11.1982.

This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid revisional court's order.

When both the suits were pending before different Munsifs then the best course was to consolidate both the suits and direct them to be decided jointly by one Munsif as per Order IV-A Rule 1 C.P.C. (as added by U.P.).  The view of the revisional court that causes of action in both the suits were different is not correct.  The pleas taken in both the suits are interwoven with each other and decision of one suit is bound to affect the decision of other suit.

Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside.  District Judge, Mainpuri is directed to transfer both the suits to one court with the direction that the said court shall consolidate both the suits and try and decide them jointly.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

1.2.2007

RS/-

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.