GUWAHATI, India, July 26 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 25:

1. Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. A.F.N.U. Mollah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 8.

2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Goalpara (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Trial Court") whereby the application filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 48/2019 was allowed thereby staying the further proceedings of Title Suit No. 18/2015 till the disposal of Title Suit No. 13/2012.

3. Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that this was a case where the learned Trial Court instead of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Code ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code, taking into account both the suits were pending before the same Court and any issue decided in one suit would have an implication in the other suit. The learned counsel further submitted that the first suit being Title Suit No. 13/2012 which had been filed by the petitioners was seeking partition of the suit properties. The learned counsel submitted that in the said suit, the defence which has been taken by the defendants/the respondents herein, is that certain portion of the suit land has been gifted by one Abdul Wahab, the predecessor-in-interest of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. She further submitted that on the basis of such averment being made in the written statement, amongst other issues, one issue has been framed as regards, the validity of the gift so made by Late Abdul Wahab in favour of the defendant No. 1.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that taking into account that the Gift Deed came to their knowledge and further there is a will executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of two defendants and one plaintiff there was a necessity of either filing an amendment to the said suit or file a separate suit. The petitioners herein choose the latter option and filed the second suit which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 18/2015. The learned counsel therefore submitted that if there is any decision so made in Title Suit No. 13/2012 pertaining to the validity of the Gift Deed, that too, without there being any opportunity granted to contest the said Gift Deed, it would cause severe prejudice to the petitioners and as such it was a fit case for joint trial of both the suits, more particularly, when the evidence in Title Suit No. 13/2012 would overlap with the evidence in Title Suit No. 18/2015. In that regard, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ranjan Chemicals LTD. & Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 97.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d2eL6q41UfFUOy9ZsOK8Cyc2uPdOVytjI0E8e89d8AQM&caseno=CRP(IO)/107/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010089102020&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.