Reply To: Pleading

Checkout Forums Civil Law Discourse Pleading Reply To: Pleading

#112110
Tina DU
Guest

CONSOLIDATION OF SUIT

Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of issue arising for decision in two
different suits, enables them for consolidation for trial and decision.

REFER TO

Nirmala Devi vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, JT 2000 (4) SC 229.
Col. Suresh Chand & Anr. vs. Shri Satish Dayal, I.A. no. 11307/2009 in CS(OS)2319/2006 decided on 28.01.2010.
Chitivalsa Jute Mills vs. Jaype Rewa Cement, 2004 (3) SCC 85.
Nirmala Devi vs. Arun Kumar Gupta and Ors., JT 2000 (4) SC 229.
Virender Gupta vs. Nitender Gupta and Ors., 31(1987) DLT 406

IN Nirmala Devi vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, JT 2000 (4) SC 229 to contend that a probate petition can be
clubbed with a suit.

  1. Learned counsel appearing for defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5 has
    strenuously urged that the beneficiary of the Will in the probate petition,
    namely, the second wife of Late Sh. R.P. Srivastava is a senior citizen
    being above the age of 80 years. It is submitted that the present application
    is only an attempt to delay the whole proceedings. The probate petition
    throws up limited questions of law and facts which could be expeditiously
    disposed of. On the other hand, the present suit has raised various issues
    which would require a detailed trial and needlessly delay the proceedings
    in the probate petition. Reliance is placed on the following three judgments
    to contend that in such circumstances as that of the present case, the
    Court would normally not exercise power under Section 24 of the Civil
    Procedure Code.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitivalsa Jute Mills vs. Jaype Rewa Cement, 2004(3) SCC 85 in para 12 held as follows:

“12. … Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of
the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits
being consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials.
The evidence having been recorded, common arguments need to
be addressed followed by one common judgment. …

Nirmala Devi vs. Arun Kumar Gupta and Ors., JT 2000 (4) SC229 relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff which states as follows:-

“4. … Therefore, now remains the question whether the probate
proceedings could be clubbed with the suit. Learned counsel for
respondent No. 1 submitted that the civil suit is of the year 1987
and that despite various orders of the High Court, it has remained
pending and the probate proceedings are initiated by the appellant
in 1997 regarding the Will of 1984. Be that as it may, the decision in the probate proceedings on the question of proof of the Will,
will have a direct impact on the suit. Only on this short ground
and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
controversy between the parties, we request learned District Judge,
Gopalganj to make it convenient to dispose of the Probate
proceedings being Probate Case No. 11 of 1997 along with civil
suit being T.S. No. 27 of 1987….