Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No. 41 dated 09.03.07 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Lalbagh in Suit No. 206 of 2005 thereby allowing an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THIS short fact is that the petitioner instituted the suit being O.S. No. 206 of 2005 (earlier No. 74/99)praying for declaration of her title with regard to the property in suit, permanent injunction and other reliefs. In that suit, the defendants / opposite parties herein entered appearance and they are contesting the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, they filed an application for stay of the suit contending that the earlier suit being Title Suit No. 168/98 is pending between the same parties over the self same matter. That application for stay was allowed on contest. Being aggrieved this application has been preferred. Now the point is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that there is previously instituted a suit being T.S. No. 168/98 between Purabi Das and Nitish Kumar Das as plaintiffs against Ashish Kr. Das and others including Jogmaya Das for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In that suit the plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction and for consequential reliefs. In the other suit being O.S. No. 74 of 1999, Jogmaya Das is the plaintiff and Purabi Das and Nitish Kumar Das are the defendants. In that suit the plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction and other reliefs. Admittedly, the suit property in the two suits is the one and same. Here I find that the suit has been stayed by the impugned order. The parties of the suits are not the same but one deed of gift is the subject matter of dispute in the two suits and that shall be the matter of consideration in the two suits amongst the parties mentioned in the two suits. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in the two suits cannot be said to be the same at all but contrary. This being the position, the grant of stay of the suit as passed by the learned trial judge is not fit and proper. It would have been better if necessary steps could be taken for analogous hearing of two suits because the same deed of gift is the subject matter of the dispute in respect of both the suits. In the case of [Chitivalasa Jute Mills, Petitioner vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement, Respondent] reported in (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 85, in order to avoid conflict of the decisions by the two separate Courts, it has been decided that the two suits pending in two different Courts shall be tried and decided by one and same Court. It has also been decided that two suits in two Courts, having same cause of action and parties being substantially same, should be directed to be consolidated for trial and decision. In the instant case the position is the same. The two different suits are pending in two Courts. So in considerations of the decision reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 85 (supra) it will be just, proper and convenient if the directions are made that the two suits shall be heard and disposed of by the same Court analogously i.e. the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lalbag, Murshidabad, within a certain period. During argument, the learned advocate for the opposite party submits that the stages of the two suits are now different while in the earlier suit, evidence is being recorded, in the later suit, the suit is at the sage of framing of issues. In this regard, since the other suit is at the stage of framing of issues it could be posted shortly for recording evidence. So, there is no bar inconvenience for disposal of the two suits analogously. Moreover, this is also necessary to avoid conflict of decisions by two Courts dealing with the same deed of gift in question. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be supported the application succeeds.
(3.) FOR that, reason the Title Suit being T.S. No. 206 of 2005 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Additional Court, stands withdrawn and the same is transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lalabag, Murshidabad for disposal. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall dispose of the two suits analogously within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order to him. This application is disposed of in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.;