SITARAM DEORAO PAWAR Vs. RUPABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Writ Petitions challenge identical order passed on 6-11-2003 by Joint Civil Judge (JD) , Buldhana, in Regular civil Suit Nos. 4 of 1986 and 6 of 1986. The respondents in both these writ petitions moved applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil procedure Code, for adding them as parties in these suits. Respondent No. 12 Brijlal in both matters moved separate application while respondents No. 1 to 8 moved combined application. In both civil suits by identical order, these applications have been allowed. The Petitioners, who are plaintiffs, have approached this Court challenging these orders.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Shri. Kilor for the Petitioners and Advocate Shri. Khapre for respondents. Both of them suggested for final decision at admission stage itself. On 21-12-2003 this court while issuing notice made it clear that matters may be disposed of finally at admission stage only. Accordingly both the sides also placed their written notes of argument along with Xerox copies of citations for consideration of this court. After going through said written notes of arguments, it was found that Advocate Khapre for respondents made statement in his written notes that all the suits between various parties in relation to suit property are consolidated. There are total 5 suits in relation to very same property. In view of this, the issue was placed before petitioner and his Counsel Shri. Kilor took time to verify the position. Advocate Shri. Khapre for respondents also took time to ascertain factual position. On 9-12-2005 both the Advocates stated that suits are consolidated and evidence is being recorded only in one matter.

(3.) Civil Suit No. 4 of 1986 is filed by petitioner Totaram while Civil Suit No. 6 of 1986 is filed by petitioner Sitaram against rupabai for specific performance of contract. In Civil Suit No. 4 of 1986 petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement for sale on 6-1-1983 with her for purchase of 1h 01r out of survey No. 23/3 while the other petitioner claims to have entered into similar transaction for remaining 1h 01r for same survey number on same date with Rupabai. Amrut Khatri and yamunabai Khatri are stated to be relatives of said Rupabai and they are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in both the suits. It is contended that they deliberately in collusion with Rupabai obtained sale deed of this land on 21-2-1983 despite knowledge of their earlier contract with them. It is further stated that the defendants in both the suits have set up their relations who have commenced various litigation in Civil as also revenue courts. The Petitioners have stated that they were also placed the possession of Suit fields and application for appointment of receiver was pending before Sessions Judge, buldhana. It is to be noted that copies of plaints in all 5 suits are not produced on record by parties. Predecessors-in-title of added parties namely Ramlal and Sheshlal appear to have filed two suits vide RCS Nos. 167 of 1983 and 236 of 1986. After death of Ramlal, the added parties are prosecuting those suits as plaintiffs. Last respondent Brijlal in both these petitions claims to have purchased half of suit property from Amrut Khatri and to be in possession thereof. It appears that present Petitioners are party defendants in RCS Nos. 167 of 1983 and 236 of 1986. Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 1984 is filed by Rupabai, Amrutrao and Yamunabai together against Sitaram, Totaram, Ramlal, sheshlal and Talathi in person for declaration that alleged agreement dated 6-1-1983 is obtained by present Petitioners by fraud and is not binding upon them. The added parties claim that in 1980 Rupabai inducted Ramlal and sheshlal as tenants in said field property and when their possession was obstructed, Ramlal and Sheshlal filed RCS No. 167 of 1983. It is thus apparent that facts giving rise to this litigation are intermingled and decision in any suit is likely to affect the other Suit. The landowner Rupabai with Amrutrao and yamunabai appear to be party in all cases. The order of consolidation passed by court below therefore is just and proper and nobody has made any grievance against it. Accordingly all the suits are now before the same court.