- (1.) With the consent of the parties counsel, the main case itself has been taken up for final hearing.
(2.) The facts - The petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession of a shop on September 22, 1981 against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) on the ground that they were trespassers. They filed the second suit for recovery of mesne profits for use and occupation with effect from September 10, 1981 to September 9, 1984. The defendants moved an application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for staying further proceedings in the second suit for recovery of mesne profits. The trial Judge vide order dated February 9, 1984 stayed further proceedings in the suit. The plaintiffs have come up in revision against that order.
(3.) The order of the trial Judge is not correct. It will result in injustice to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could bring a suit for recovery of possession and also for mesne profits. They omitted to claim mesne profits in the earlier suit. There is no bar in claiming mesne profits in the second suit. However, both the suits should have been ordered to be consolidated and disposed of by one judgment. Identical issues are likely to arise for adjudication and it would be just if the revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. Civil suit No. 1342 of 1984 titled Radhey Sham v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others is ordered to be consolidated with Civil suit No. 1300 of 1981 titled Radhey Sham v. Shakuntala Devi etc. pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karnal. If the suits are pending before the different Subordinate Judges, the learned District Judge, Karnal shall ensure that both the suits are tried by one Subordinate judge. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial judge on 20.11.1989. Petition accepted.;