AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioner has sought for setting aside the order passed by the Prl. City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore, in Misc. No. 669/2012 dated 12.4.2013 vide Annexure-D and for such other relief. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
This petition is arising out of the rejection of the application filed u/s 24 of CPC for clubbing suits by the parties. The respondents herein are said to have filed a suit for recovery during the year 2010, whereas the petitioner herein has filed a suit during the year 2011. There appears to be breach of agreement and ultimately, in a recovery proceeding, two independent suits have been filed. The trial Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner herein by assigning the following reasons:
Petitioner''s O.S. No. 2164/2011 of CCH. No. 31 against respondent is for recovery of money and Respondent NO. 1 has filed O.S. NO. 3335/2010 (wrongly mentioned as 2011) before CCH. No. 18 and in both suits stage is for the evidence of the parties. Respondent No. 9 submits that petitioner suit is still at the initial stage whereas respondent''s suit has reached to the stage of cross-examination of P.W. 1. Hence, at this stage common trial and disposal of both these matters can not be considered due to the district stages of the suits.
That apart, in petitioner''s suit O.S. No. 2164/2011 relief for recovery of money is filed on the cause of action dated 23.6.2008, 30.9.2008 and 16.3.2009, whereas in O.S. NO. 3335/2010 of Respondent No. 1 against petitioner, relief for recovery of money, is on the cause of action on 22.4.2009 and 24.9.2009. Hence, in view of the different causes of action and also respective pleadings, these two suits cannot be clubbed together as prayed. Petitioner''s continuous absence and non-participation is also another ground to deny the relief. Petitioner''s prayer to club both these matters for common trial does not come under Sec. 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that both the matters be clubbed together and be heard within a specific time.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the conduct and attitude of the petitioner is such that having kept quite for such a long period of one year even without filing a counter and also without making a counter claim, he has filed independent suits. If he is really entitled for any recovery of dues, then he could have filed a counter claim and sought to contest the matter. Hence, there is no illegality in the order. On looking to the reason assigned and also submission made by the parties, it appears there is no error as such committed by the trial Court in dismissing the application.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.