AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 303 wordsS. Sarwar Ali, J.—There were two Title Suits pending, Title Suits Nos. 164/68 and 89/69.
In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 1972, which arose out of receivership matter in Title Suit No. 89/69. I observed:
"Mr. S. C. Sinha for the appellant says that Title Suit No. 164 of 1968 is also pending between the parties. This suit and the present suit need not be heard together. If Title Suit No. 164 of 1968 is not ready for hearing, there is no reason why this suit should be postponed for that reason."
It appears that Title Suit No. 89/69 could not be disposed of for one reason or the other. The opposite party filed an application before the learned District Judge for the transfer of Title Suit No. 89/69 to the Court of Third Additional Subordinate Judge, where Title Suit No. 164 of 1968 was pending. It is surprising that al though no prayer was made for the two suits being tried together, the learned District Judge in spite of the observations of this court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25/72 has directed that the two suits should be tried together.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having appreciated all the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the order of the court below directing that the title suits be heard together unconditionally has to be set aside.
Since, the parties have no objection to the two suits being tried together, provided both of them are ready, I direct the trial court that in case both the suits are ready they may toe heard together. But if only one of the two suits is ready, then the suit which is ready shall be heard separately.
This civil revision application is allowed, to the extent indicated above.