ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri N.R. Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3/State and Shri N.A. Gaikwad, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 9.
2] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3] The defendants in Regular Civil Suit 14 of 2014 preferred an application that common evidence be recorded in Regular Civil Suit 14 of 2014 Parag Shukla and others v. Baban Shukla, Regular Civil Suit 48 of 2012 Baban Shukla and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, Regular Civil Suit 13 of 2014 Shyam Shukla and others v. Baban Shukla, Regular Civil Suit 12 of 2014 Parag Shukla and another v. Baban Shukla and others and Regular Civil Suit 11 of 2014 Parag Shukla and another v. Baban Shukla and others.
4] The application is premised on the order of the District Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2014 paragraph 2 of which reads thus:
3
2 Heard both sides. During course of argument both sides have conceded that CJ.S.D. Buldana court has no jurisdiction however both the sides agreed to club all the suits altogether in one court to avoid conflicting views. Accordingly, both sides have filed joint pursis Exh.20 to club all suits in the court of C.J.S.D. (Link Court) Malkapur where special civil suit no. 48/2012 is pending. In view of said joint pursis as well as for avoiding conflicting views and putting entire controversy before one court I deem it fit to club all suits in one court, hence order:
5] The trial court was pleased to reject the application inter alia observing:
5. Both the parties are making reference to the order of Hon'ble Principal District & Session Judge, Buldana in MJC No.6/2014 on 10.06.2014. It appears that present defendant Baban had filed the said application for consideration of the above matters. Hon'ble Principal District Sessions Judge Buldana considered the submissions and pursis and transferred RCS No. 105/2011 (Present RCS No. 14/2014). RCS No. 47/2013 (present RCS No.13/2014), RCS No. 48/2013 (present RCS No.12/2014) and RCS No. 49/2013 (present RCS No.11/2014) for trial with RCS No. 48/2012 in the erstwhile Court of Civil Judge Senior Division (Link Court) at Malkapur. Now the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division is regular from 16.08.2018.
6. Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge Buldana also directed to decide the matters expeditiously. On perusal of the copy of the order, it becomes clear that Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge Buldana considered the aspect of conflicting views and directed to put the entire controversy before one Court. There is no direction of taking common evidence in all these matters and
4
it is rather admitted fact. Even the copy of pursis go to show that there was intention to club all the matters before one Court. So now it will have to be seen whether it is feasible to take common evidence in all these matters to avoid the repetition and to save time.
7. Though the defendants are batting for common evidence, the plaintiffs are reluctant. Even the records go to show that in present matter the affidavit of plaintiff No. 2 Sharad is already filed at Ex. 93 on 1.3.2018. So also the affidavit of plaintiff No. Baban in RCS No. 48/2012 is filed at Ex. 99 in that matter on 20.11.2017. So these two matters have commenced as the examination in chief has completed. Rest of the matters are yet to begin. Further more, though some of the plaintiffs and defendants are common in all these suits, still some of the parties are not repeated or are not party to all the suits.
8. In these circumstances and having regard to difference in the subject matter and the dispute, I find that taking common evidence in one matter will create technical difficulties and may result in delaying the matters further. Both the parties know that the present suit has been expedited and the period is going to complete tomorrow on 15.09.2018. This Court has also sent a request letter to Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur for extension of time. So the clubbing or rather taking common evidence will not be of any help and may confuse the parties as well. Hence, the order follows.
6] I do not see any error in the order of the learned trial court much less an error warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
5
7] However, Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners - defendants would strenuously urge that even if the evidence is recorded separately the suits should be decided simultaneously i.e. on the same day. The submission is justified. The suits can be decided simultaneously while the evidence may be recorded separately.
8] While the order impugned is not interfered with, the learned trial court is directed to decide all the five suits referred to in paragraph 3 together i.e. on the same day. All the five suits shall be finally disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event within one year. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
NSN
6