Delhi High Court
Sumitra Devi And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TR.P(C) No.59/2013
% 11th March, 2014
SUMITRA DEVI AND ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Advocate.
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1(i) This is a petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for consolidation of two suits.
(ii) First suit is a suit filed by Sh. Mukesh Gupta against the two defendants, namely DDA (defendant no.1) and Sh. Baljeet Singh (defendant no.2) In this suit, plaintiff/Sh. Mukesh Gupta, and who is one of the petitioners before this Court, pleads ownership rights in a plot of 175 sq. mtrs which is plot no.52 in Pocket-I, Sector-8, Bagdola, Dwarka, New Delhi. In the suit, it is pleaded that the part of this plot No.52 admeasuring 60 sq mtrs was encroached by the defendant no.2 namely Sh. Baljeet Singh behind T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 1 of 5 the back of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and therefore relief of mandatory injunction was claimed with respect to this portion of about 60 sq mtrs. Really therefore the suit is a suit for possession of approximately 60 sq mtrs in plot No.52. It be noted that Baljeet Singh and Sumitra Devi are joint petitioners alongwith Mukesh Gupta in this Section 24 CPC petition.
(iii) The second suit is a suit filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi, and who is one of the petitioners before me, in which suit she claims to be the owner of a plot no.110 situated in khasra No.4/4 in village Bagdola, New Delhi which was originally allotted to one Sh. Brahm Prakash and subsequently purchased by the plaintiff-Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Sh. Baljeet Singh. The suit plot in this suit filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi is shown to be an of area of 120 sq mtrs. Smt. Sumitra Devi in her suit refers to a Local Commissioner's report filed in the earlier suit of Sh. Mukesh Gupta and as to how the Local Commissioner's report is illegal. In the suit, relief is prayed with respect to 40 sq yds of land stated to be part of plot no.110 situated in khasra no.4/4 which is said not to have been acquired.
2. The suit filed by Sh. Mukesh Gupta is of 2006 vintage whereas the suit filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi is of 2009 vintage. In the second suit of Smt. Sumitra Devi of the year 2009, there is also defendant no.3 which is T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 2 of 5 Gaon Sabha, Bagrola, and which is not a party to the earlier suit filed by Sh. Mukesh Gupta.
3. Powers under Section 24 CPC are exercised when there are common questions of facts and law in two suits. Also, it is necessary that suits must be more or less at similar stages. Also, if issues in one suit are same as issues in a previous suit, actually it is the second suit which will have to be stayed under Section 10 CPC. Also, powers under Section 24 CPC are discretionary in order to further justice, and if proceedings under Section 24 CPC are not bonafidely invoked, Courts can refuse to grant relief.
4. A reference to the plaints of both the suits show that it is not possible to make out that there is an identity with respect to the plots in dispute i.e it cannot be said that there are common questions of facts and law with respect to the same plot. Also, if according to the petitioners in this Court and who are plaintiffs in the second suit (and they have jointly filed this petition under Section 24 CPC) that there are identical issues of facts and law in both the suits, then, surely the second suit which is filed in the year 2009 can be got stayed under Section 10 CPC.
5. Considering the substantial variance in the facts of the plaints of both the suits, taken with the fact that there is confusion as to identity and T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 3 of 5 similarity of the disputed portions of the plots, as also the fact that there seems to be no apparent reason why a second suit has been filed in the year 2009 by Smt. Sumitra Devi if issues in the second suit of the year 2009 are same as in the first suit because in such a situation the second suit would have to be stayed under Section 10 CPC, I do not think that powers under Section 24 CPC should be exercised in the facts of the case such as the present. Also, I find that in both the suit plaints effectively possession is asked for different sizes of plots. Whereas in the suit filed by Sh. Mukesh Gupta possession is asked for of 60 sq mtrs, in the suit filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi possession is asked for of 40 sq yds.
6. It is relevant to note that Delhi Development Authority is a defendant in both the suits and is appearing before me through counsel and opposing the consolidation of both the suits including for the reasons as stated above and also that both the suits are before Courts of different pecuniary jurisdiction. It is also argued that there seems to be some unstated purpose in getting suits consolidated otherwise there is no reason why separate plaintiffs in separate suits would seek consolidation. T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 4 of 5
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 11, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
T.R.P (C) 59/2013 Page 5 of 5