NITAI CHARAN RANA Vs. SMT. SANTABALA RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, despite a previous direction of analogous hearing of the petitioners' suit, bearing Title Suit No.404 of 2017, along with Title Suit No.44 of 2014, the latter having been filed upon withdrawal of a previous suit filed by the opposite parties themselves bearing Title Suit No.43 of 2014, and even after a specific order by the trial court calling for the records of Title Suit No.43 of 2014, the trial court, by the impugned order, has reheard such prayer and rejected the same.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the records of Title Suit No.43 of 2014 are relevant and vital since the two suits, directed to be heard analogously, were at the stage of argument but, upon withdrawal of Title Suit No.43 of 2014, Title Suit No.44 of 20214 has been filed afresh, which will unnecessarily delay the analogous hearing if the latter suit is taken up from the initial stages. Since the subject-matter and evidence of Title Suit Nos.43 and 44 of 2014 are similar, the analogous hearing can only take place along with Title Suit No.404 of 2017 in the event the evidence and other records of Title Suit No.43 of 2014 are also brought to the court hearing Title Suit No.404 of 2017.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposes such contention and submits that Order VII Rule 10, read with Rule 10A, of the Code of Civil Procedure permits only the plaintiffs in the suit to ask for return of the plaint and, as such, there is no question of calling for the records of the non-existent Title Suit No.43 of 2014 at this juncture.