Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Lal & Ors vs Gavri Shankar & Ors on 27 May, 2011
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 385/2006
(Bhanwar Lal & Ors. Vs. Gavri Shanker & Ors.)
Date of Order: 27th May 2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. B. R. Mehta, for the petitioner.
...
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition has been placed for orders in default category with the office report that the requisite process-fees and notices in relation to the respondents Nos. 3/1 to 3/5 have not been filed yet.
Perusal of the record makes out that when the notices sent for the said respondents Nos. 3/1 to 3/5 were again received unserved, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for and was granted time to file the fresh notices with fresh address by 04.09.2010. The requisites having not been put-in, the matter was placed before the Registrar (Administration) on 22.10.2010 and three weeks' time was allowed to do the needful. The requisites having yet not been put-in, the matter was, again, placed before the Registrar (Administration) on 12.11.2010 and three weeks' further time was allowed. The default having persisted, the matter was placed before the Court on 06.12.2010 and, by way of indulgence, yet further two weeks' time was allowed to do the needful. More than five months thereafter, the matter has been placed today before the Court with the same report that the required process-fees and notices have not been filed. This petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
However, looking to the circumstances, the record of the case 2 has also been examined; and after consideration, there does not appear any reason even otherwise to continue with this petition any further.
This petition is directed against the order dated 30.07.2005 whereby the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bhinmal ordered consolidation for trial the two civil original suits bearing numbers 14/1996 and 32/1996 with the observations that when the two suits were carrying the same dispute between the same parties and were pending in the same Court, it was just and proper to decide both of them together.
The plaintiffs-petitioners have contended in this petition, inter alia, that they have filed the first suit (No. 14/1996) for perpetual and mandatory injunction that the defendants should not obstruct the construction nor should they open any door or ventilation on the side of their plot, and the already opened vents be closed whereas the second suit (No. 32/1996) has been filed for perpetual injunction that the defendants should not enter into their plot and should not obstruct their repairing of the road and wall. It is submitted that although three defendants are common in the two suits but there are other defendants in the second suit; and all the parties are not the same in the two suits. It is also submitted that the first suit (No. 14/1996) was at the final stage with the evidence being over whereas in the second suit (No. 32/1996), the parties were yet to lead their evidence.
This writ petition was admitted for consideration by this Court on 08.02.2006 and by way of interim order, while the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 30.07.2005 was stayed, the Trial Court was left free to proceed further in Original Suit No. 14/1996.
Although the present status of the suit has not been pointed out but then, looking to the overall circumstances, no purpose would 3 be served by continuing with this petition any further when it has remained pending for over five years and all the respondents have not been served yet. If the first suit bearing number 14/1996 has reached its conclusion in the Trial Court, this petition is even otherwise rendered redundant; and if at all the same still remains pending in the Trial Court for any reason, it does not appear expedient to keep the two suits in uncertainty and incertitude, with the pendency of this writ petition; rather, looking to the nature of litigation, it would be in the interest of justice that whatever be the matter pending in the Trial Court between the parties and pertaining to this petition, the same be taken to the finality at the earliest. Apart from the foregoing, the order impugned does not appear suffering from any jurisdiction error so as to warrant interference in the supervisory jurisdiction.
In view of what has been noticed and observed hereinabove, it appears just and proper that this petition be not continued any further and be dismissed without any comments on the merits of the related civil suits.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the observations foregoing.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
4