AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I. Mahanty, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner Smt. Lala Sukanti Ray has sought to challenge the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior-Division) First Court, Cuttack in dismissing her application for amendment of the written statement and also rejecting the application of the present petitioner for tagging the two suits C.S. No. 379 of 2002 along with C.S. No. 433 of 2005 or alternatively seeking stay of further proceeding in C.S. No. 379 of 2002 till disposal of C.S. No. 433 of 2005.
The facts of the present case indicates that the present Opp.Party No. 1, as plaintiff, instituted C.S. No. 379 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack impleading the other opposite parties as well as the present petitioner (Defendant No. 5) claiming partition of ''B'' schedule property situated at Jagatsinghpur. In the said suit, the plaintiff also claimed 50% share in the ''A'' schedule property situated at Cuttack. The petitioner-defendant No. 5 claims that upon issuance of notice of the suit, he came to know that the plaintiff is claiming ha''f share of Schedule ''A'' property on the basis of the decree passed in T.S. No. 99 of 1985 in which the award passed by the arbitrator has been made "Rule of Court.
It is contended by the petitioner that on receiving notices from the Court, she made an inquiry regarding T.S. No. 99 of 1985 and found that the said decree had been obtained without making her a party in order to ignore her entitlement. The petitioner further states that after getting information and making inquiry, she filed C.S. No. 433 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack on 7.10.2005 seeking to set aside the decree passed in T.S. No. 99 of 1985.
Sri Bidhayak Patnaik, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although in the present writ application, two prayers are made, one against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of written statement, a second prayer has been made for direction for hearing of the two suits analogously. At the time of hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press the prayer regarding the rejection of amendment application and confines her prayer for tagging the two suits, namely, C.S. No. 379 of 2002 along with C.S. No. 433 of 2005 both pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo to the aforesaid effect. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently objects to such a prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that there is no necessity for directing hearing of two suits analogously since they involve distinctly separate matters.
Having heard learned Counsel for both parties, and upon persual of the plaints in both the aforesaid suits. It is seen that whereas in C.S. No. 379 of 2002 prayer have been made by the plaintiff for partition of both schedule ''A'' and schedule ''B'' properties, it further appears, that the plaintiff has sought for a declaration of 50% of share in schedule ''A'' property situated at Cuttack, purportedly on the basis of and relying on a decree passed in C.S. No. 99 of 1985 by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack.
From the prayer made in C.S. No. 433 of 2005 it appears that the present petitioner has filed the said suit with a prayer to set aside the decree dated 9.3.1987 in T.S. No. 99 of 1985.
In view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that since common questions are raised in both the suits and they are clearly interconnected, adjudication of both the suits together would be in the interest of all the parties as well as in the interest of justice. Therefore this writ application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above with a direction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Cuttack to tag C.S. No. 379 of 2002 with C.S. No. 433 of 2005 and proceed with them in accordance with law.