Although, it is true that some of the issues in the two suits are
common, it will not be open for any party to insist, as a matter of
right, that common evidence is required to be recorded in the two
suits. Learned Trial Judge has noted that the issues are not identical.
Further, even the parties in the two suits are not the same. In the
sense that in one of the suit there is an additional party. Further,
learned Trial Judge has directed that both suits be expedited and
kept on same date. Merely because, learned Trial Judge has not
consented to recording of common evidence, it cannot be said that
the impugned order has vitiated any jurisdictional error or
unreasonable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10799 OF 2016
Mrs. Neelima C. Pavale vs. Usha Shashikant Mehta
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 23 AUGUST 2017.
1] Not on board. In view of urgency taken on production board.
2] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3] Upon due consideration of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusing the material on record, I
am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant any
interference in the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4] Although, it is true that some of the issues in the two suits are
common, it will not be open for any party to insist, as a matter of
right, that common evidence is required to be recorded in the two
suits. Learned Trial Judge has noted that the issues are not identical.
Further, even the parties in the two suits are not the same. In the
sense that in one of the suit there is an additional party. Further,
learned Trial Judge has directed that both suits be expedited and
kept on same date. Merely because, learned Trial Judge has not
consented to recording of common evidence, it cannot be said that
the impugned order has vitiated any jurisdictional error or
unreasonable.
5] The petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall however, be
no order as to costs.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
common, it will not be open for any party to insist, as a matter of
right, that common evidence is required to be recorded in the two
suits. Learned Trial Judge has noted that the issues are not identical.
Further, even the parties in the two suits are not the same. In the
sense that in one of the suit there is an additional party. Further,
learned Trial Judge has directed that both suits be expedited and
kept on same date. Merely because, learned Trial Judge has not
consented to recording of common evidence, it cannot be said that
the impugned order has vitiated any jurisdictional error or
unreasonable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10799 OF 2016
Mrs. Neelima C. Pavale vs. Usha Shashikant Mehta
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 23 AUGUST 2017.
1] Not on board. In view of urgency taken on production board.
2] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3] Upon due consideration of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusing the material on record, I
am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant any
interference in the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4] Although, it is true that some of the issues in the two suits are
common, it will not be open for any party to insist, as a matter of
right, that common evidence is required to be recorded in the two
suits. Learned Trial Judge has noted that the issues are not identical.
Further, even the parties in the two suits are not the same. In the
sense that in one of the suit there is an additional party. Further,
learned Trial Judge has directed that both suits be expedited and
kept on same date. Merely because, learned Trial Judge has not
consented to recording of common evidence, it cannot be said that
the impugned order has vitiated any jurisdictional error or
unreasonable.
5] The petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall however, be
no order as to costs.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment