Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Bhopo Fakirbhai (Minor) And Anr. vs Bai Mani D/O Jijibhai Bechardas And Ors. on 5 December, 1960

Sohal Engineering Works vs Rustam Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. on 3 April, 1980

In support of this contention strong reliance was placed on a decision of Raju, J., in Minor Bhopo v. Mani, (1961) 2 Guj LR 179: (AIR 1961 Guj 92), where it was held that there was no provision in the Evidence Act which gave power to the Court to treat the evidence recorded in one suit as evidence in the other suit, notwithstanding that the issues are not identical and the parties are not common to both the litigations. It appears from that decision that the contentions raised in the two suits were not identical and, therefore, the issues to be decided were different and the parties to the two suits were not common. This decision of Raju, J., came up for consideration before A. D. Desai, J., in Second Appeal No. 74 of 1961 decided on 24th October, 1968. The aforesaid distinguishing features were highlighted by the learned Judge and it was pointed out that the decision turned on the peculiar facts of that case and did not lay down any hard and fast rule that the Court had no power to order or direct consolidation of two suits even if the parties to both the proceedings are identical and the suits arise out of the very same contract. In the instant case also, as pointed out earlier, both the suits arise out of the same agreement and the parties to both the litigations are the same. The learned trial Judge presumably felt that considerable public time and expense would be saved if both the suits are consolidated and the evidence is recorded in one suit. That would also avoid inconvenience to the witnesses figuring in the two suits as they will not be required to re-appear to give evidence in the other matter.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Bokaro & Ramgur Ltd. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 15 February, 1973

In the case of Bhopo Fakirbhai, AIR 1961 Guj 92 (supra), a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court took a view which seems to lend support to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Judge said that an order to treat the evidence in one suit as the evidence in another suit cannot be passed without the consent of the parties in both the suits; and in the absence of any such provision in the Evidence Act, the learned Judge was of the opinion that evidence cannot, and ought not to be heard in common in the suits without the consent of the parties. With great respect. I am unable to concur in the view taken by the learned Judge for reasons which I shall give hereinafter. In the case of Satish Chandra Ghosh (AIR 1970 Tripura 89). the learned Judicial Commissioner of Tripura held that a court can order consolidation of suits in appropriate cases and the basic principles governing consolidation of suits are that there is similarity or identity of the matter in issue in the two suits and that the suits are between the same parties. He further observed that the object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits between the same parties when the matter in issue is substantially the same in the two suits. On the facts of the case before him, he found that the matters in issue in the two suits were not identical or similar. He also placed reliance on the case of Bhopo Fakirbhai aforesaid. In the ease of Hamid (AIR 1933 Pat 61), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that it is a material irregularity in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to order consolidation against the will of almost all the parties of cases which have very little in common. In that case before the learned Judge the two suits did not have much in common. This case cannot be an authority for the proposition that even though some basic issues may be common, the suits cannot be consolidated, unless there is consent of the parties.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1