9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it 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. - Civil Appeal No. 1684 Of 2016 [@ Speical Leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 8.12.2007. 3. That while passing the order of consolidation dated 8.12.2007, this Hon'ble Court ordered as under :- It has been so urged on behalf of both contesting sides that trial in two cases be conducted commonly and evidence led in either case be read in both these cases. 4. That directions or observations of this Hon'ble Court as reproduced above operates prospectively and not retrospectively. 5. That when the Hon'ble Court ordered that evidence in one case may be read in evidence in another case, then plaintiff in Mange Ram Vs. Chander Kanta ors. would be deprived of the opportunity of cross examination of PW-1 which was concluded on 16.4.2005, much prior to the date of order of consolidation. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 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. 6. We shall extract the order dated 24.02.2010, which reads as follows :- Since the facts in this suit and suit No. 43/09 are intertwined even though Plaintiff is no more a party to suit No. 43/09, her claim for declaration to suit property therein may have refletion on the entitlement of Plaintiff, therefore, with the consent of both sides, the consolidated order dated 8.12.2007 is being maintained and suit No. 44/09 wherein past evidence of Plaintiff Ram Rati has been recorded is treated as main suit. 7. Unfortunately, those crucial aspects apparantly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
