Ramesh Kumar vs Hiranand And Ors

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief:

"By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 21.01.2021 (Annex.9) passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Abu Road in original suit No.38/2009 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently, the application preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has instituted a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the other family members on 27.07.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present respondent No.1 has filed another suit in the year 2019 challenging the Will dated 29.01.2009, which was already on record in the earlier litigation even in the year 2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the issue framed regarding validity of the Will is common in both aforementioned the suits, therefore, both the suits ought to be connected and heard together, which prayer has been declined by the learned court below vide the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Narendra Singh Vs. Jai Singh & Ors., reported in 2016(2) DNJ (Raj.) 719.

Learned counsel for the respondents however, opposes the writ petition on the ground that the Will in question was already on record in the year 2009 itself, and the issue in regard thereto has already been framed and the litigation is pending for more than 11 years, whereas the current suit has been filed only in the year 2019. Learned counsel for the respondents thus submits that in case both the suits are connected and heard together, the same would prejudice the rights of the present respondents.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar, this Court is of the firm opinion that in absence of any justifiable reason, the litigation in relation to an earlier suit of 2009, which is being litigated, cannot be combined with the litigation in relation to another suit, which has come into existence only in the year 2019. Moreover, the reason stated on behalf of the petitioner for connecting and hearing both the suits together is the Will dated 29.01.2009, which is already a part of the earlier litigation. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, because of the long time gap between institution of the two suits.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to make interference in the impugned order passed by the learned court below.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.