Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the first respondent. In spite of service of notice, there was no representation for the second respondent and the second respondent is also called absent continuously.

2. This Civil Revision has been preferred, challenging the order, dated 04.09.2010 made in R.E.A.No.146 of 2010 in R.E.A.No.78 of 2010 in R.E.P.No.319 of 2006 in O.S.No.4 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.

3. The petitioner herein, who was arrayed as obstructor in R.E.A.No.78 of 2010 filed the subsequent Execution Application in R.E.A.No.146 of 2010, seeking an order for simultaneous trial of the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2010 and the enquiry in R.E.A.No.78 of 2010. It is an admitted fact that the aforesaid suit and the Execution Petition are pending before the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri, relating to very same property.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to the learned counsel for petitioner, to meet the ends of justice, simultaneous trial in O.S.No.35 of 2010 and enquiry in the Execution Application are needed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is a bonafide purchaser and he had obtained Encumbrance Certificate prior to the agreement entered into with the second respondent and further contended that if there is simultaneous trial, it may cause delay in taking over possession of the property, pursuant to the decree obtained by the first respondent.

It is a well settled proposition of law that when the issues involved or the points for determination are the same and the parties to the 'lis' are the same or identically similar in the suits, it is needed that the two suits being consolidated for trial and for proper decision, simultaneous trial would be needed. It is not in dispute that in the Execution Application, order has to be passed, whereas in the suit, Judgment and Decree are to be passed, however, the decision in both the matters should not be a conflicting view by the Court below.

19. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (3) SCC 85 (cited supra), I find it just and reasonable to allow this revision and direct the Court below for simultaneous trial of the Execution Application and the suit. However, considering the representation made by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, in order to avoid delay, it is needed to fix a time limit for the disposal of the matter.

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the court below is set aside. The Court below is directed to dispose the R.E.A.No.78 of 2010 and the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2010 simultaneously and dispose the same on or before 29.07.2011, solely on merits, uninfluenced by the findings of this Court, if any. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.