2016 (2) TMI 1283 - SC - Indian Laws

Declaration and injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property - suit rejected, holding that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against them - the only ground taken up in the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is that after consolidation of the suits, the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009 should get an opportunity to cross examine the PW1 - HELD THAT - It is interesting to note that in the order dated 24.02.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009, consolidated with Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009, it has been noted by the Court that the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009 is no more a party to Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009 and the earlier order of consolidation of suits dated 8.12.2007 was maintained, further clarifying that the past evidence of plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009, which has already been recorded, to be treated as the main suit. Unfortunately, those crucial aspects apparantly have been missed by the trial court and the High Court while passing the impugned orders. It is not necessary to us to go into the various other contentions regarding the permissibility of recalling under Order 18 Rule 17, though Mr. Pritesh Kapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has elaborated on those aspects as well - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Consolidation of suits, opportunity for cross-examination post-consolidation, interpretation of court orders regarding evidence, recall under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two suits filed by different parties and consolidated by the court. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009 seeking declaration and injunction, while the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009 seeking permanent injunction for the same property. The respondents requested to discharge the statement of PW-1 and examine the witness afresh post-consolidation, citing the court's order on conducting trials commonly and reading evidence in both cases. The application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC aimed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of PW-1 after consolidation.

The Additional District Judge rejected the suit against Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009, who were parties in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009. The key issue raised was whether the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009 should have the chance to cross-examine Defendant No. 5 post-consolidation. The court clarified the status of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009, noting that the past evidence recorded would be treated as the main suit, maintaining the order of consolidation dated 8.12.2007.

The judgment highlighted that crucial aspects were overlooked by the trial court and the High Court in their orders. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the suits. The judgment did not delve into other contentions regarding the permissibility of recalling under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, despite arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. The directive was to ensure the prompt resolution of the pending suits within a month from the date of the order, without imposing any costs.