9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement, a Division of Jai Prakash Industries Limited, a duly incorporated company has its registered office at Lucknow, U.P. and works at Rewa in M.P. Hereinafter, the same shall be referred to as 'Jaypee Rewa', for short. 3. Jaypee Rewa manufactures cement. For the purpose of packing its products. It needs jute bags. Willard India in its jute Division is manufacturer of jute bags. The parties entered into an agreement through correspondence, the exact details whereof are not relevant; the fact remains that Willard India have been supplying jute bags from Chitivalasa to Jaypee Rewa at Rewa for use as packing material for the latter. The dispute between the parties relates to the period between 07.01.1992 and 31.12.1993 and is refera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t filed by Willard India at Visakhapatnam is prior in point of time than the suit filed by Jaypee Rewa at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh. 7. Chitivalasa Jute Mills on being served with summons in the suit at Rewa filed its written statement and also took a plea under Section 10 of the CPC that the suit filed at Rewa being subsequent in point of time, and raising the issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit between the same parties at Visakhapatnam, was liable to be stayed. However, the prayer for stay of suit was rejected by the District Judge, Rewa forming an opinion that the suit at Rewa was filed against Chitivalasa Jute Mills by Jaypee Rewa while the suit at Visakhapatnam was by Willard India again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Chitivalasa Jute Mills is nothing but a Division of Willard India Limited. The fact remains that the cause of action alleged in the two plaints refers to the same period and the same transactions, i.e., the supply of jute bags between the period 07.01.1992 and 31.12.1993. What is the cause of action alleged by one party as foundation for the relief prayed for and the decree sought for in one case is the ground of defence in the other case. The issues arising for decision would be substantially common. Almost the same set of oral and documentary evidence would be needed to be adduced for the purpose of determining the issues of facts and law arising for decision in the two suits before two different courts. Thus, there will be duplicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the Court flowing from Section 151 of the CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the Civil Court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
