VINOD KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. RADHEYSHYAM KHEMKA AND SONS HUF
LAWS(RAJ)-2014-12-126
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on December 12,2014

Vinod Kumar And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Radheyshyam Khemka And Sons Huf Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dt. 27.10.2014 passed by the trial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 10 CPC has been dismissed and the trial Court has directed consolidation of the two suits. The respondent Smt. Geeta Devi filed a suit against Vinod Kumar and others for partition, permanent and mandatory injunction on 4.7.2013. Whereafter another suit for partition came to be filed on 17.2.2014 by Radheyshyam Khemka & Sons HUF for partition and permanent and mandatory injunction. The petitioners -defendants in both suits, filed application under Sec. 10 CPC seeking stay of the subsequent suit filed by Radheyshyam Khemka & Sons HUF.
(2.) IT was inter -alia claimed that earlier suit filed by Smt. Geeta Devi pertaining to the same subject matter was pending; the parties, relief and subject matter of the previous suit was the same and therefore, the proceedings in the subsequent suit be stayed. The application was resisted by the plaintiff -HUF. After hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the parties in both the suits were same; the suit pertains to partition, however, in the suit filed by Smt. Geeta Devi only partial partition was sought and therefore, in the previous suit the relief as sought in the subsequent suit could not be granted. However, the Court found that it would be proper to consolidate both the suits and therefore, directed that the suits filed by Radheyshyam Khemka & Sons HUF and Smt. Geeta Devi be consolidated and be decided together.
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application, once a conclusion was reached that the parties were similar and the suit was for partition, the trial Court was bound to stay the proceedings in the subsequent suit, the order to consolidate the suit also cannot be sustained and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be entertained and the order impugned deserves to be quashed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.