JAHANGIR KHAN Vs. ALAMGIRI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for both parties.

(2.) ORDER dated 11.4.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jajpur rejecting the petition of the present petitioner for analogous hearing of C.S. Nos.50 of 2009 and 139 of 2009 pending before the said Court is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) IN the case of Smt. Puspalata Das (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court has held as "10. Law is well settled that when a specific provision has been made to cover a particular aspect, their is no scope for invoking the inherent power of a Court under Sec.151, CPC. However, the said principle has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, it is apparent that the main question raised in both the suits are similar. Though all the parties are not common, the contesting parties are same in both the suits. One of the main issues in both the suits would be relating to validity of the sale deed allegedly executed in favour of the present opposite party by Bijayalaxmi Das, who is also a party in the other suit. Since the main parties are common and common questions of fact and law are likely to arise, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any illegality in directing that both the suits should be heard analogously instead of directing stay of the subsequent suit. The facts and circumstances arising in the Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 527 are completely different. The other two decisions of the Orissa High Court cited by the counsel for the petitioners relate to general principle of law and do not lay down anything which can be considered to be throwing any light on the question now involved. It is to be noticed that both the suits were pending in the very same Court and not in different Courts. The order passed by the trial Court directing analogous hearing of both the suits is in the interest of justice and it cannot be said that the order is without jurisdiction."