SUKHVINDRA SINGH Vs. RAMESH KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -plaintiff has assailed the order impugned dated 02.09.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh District Sriganganagar (for short 'learned court below') whereby learned court below has rejected his application under Section 22 read with Section 151 CPC for transferring civil suit No. 176/2014 (Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. Sukhvindra Singh) pending adjudication before the Senior Civil Judge, Anoopgarh and consolidating civil suit No. 8/2013 (Sukhvindra Singh v. Ramesh Kumar) pending before it. In the application submitted by the petitioner, it is inter alia averred that subject -matter of both the suits is the same disputed plot No. 10 measuring 50 x 80 ft. and, therefore, both these suits are liable to be tried simultaneously after transferring civil suit No. 176/2014 by the court. It is also averred in the application that the petitioner in the instant suit has claimed ownership over the plot in question on the strength of doctrine of adverse possession whereas the respondent in his suit has craved for relief of possession and perpetual injunction. In totality, the petitioner has harped on the fact that as the subject -matter of both the suits is common piece of land i.e. plot No. 10, power under Section 22 CPC be exercised by transferring the suit filed by the respondents and both the suits be tried by the court below.

(2.) THE application is contested by the respondent. In the return, the respondent has also averred that nature of relief in both the suits are different and, therefore, power under Section 22 CPC is not liable to be invoked. It is also submitted in the return that in both the suits, the stages are different and the suit for possession and perpetual injunction filed on his behalf is at the fag end of the trial. As per the version of the respondent, in the suit filed by him, evidence of both the parties has completed and it is posted for final arguments. Therefore, at such a belated stage, the application filed by the petitioner is not entertainable as the same has been designed to prolong the decision in the suit filed by the respondent.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr. R.K. Thanvi submits that learned court below has not at all cared to examine the subject -matter of both the suits in the light of provisions contained under Section 22 CPC and, therefore, the impugned order is per se vulnerable. Mr. Thanvi submits that when the learned court below has prima facie agreed that subject -matter of both the suits is one disputed plot, it ought to have exercised its discretion for consolidation of both the suits by way of transfer of the suit filed by the respondent for being tried simultaneously. Lastly, Mr. Thanvi submits that when the subject -matter in both the suits is one disputed plot and they are tried separately by different courts, there are possibility of different verdicts which may unnecessarily multiply the litigation.