Sunday, 5 August 2018

Whether it is permissible for court to order contingent trials?

The question, whether the appellants/defendants in the present case are in unauthorized occupation or not is for adjudication in the first suit. No such adjudication can be undertaken in the second suit as well. Thus the recording of the evidence in the second suit can at best be confined to the rate of mesne profits for the period from 1st June, 2009 to 31st May, 2012 and even if such adjudication is done expeditiously i.e. prior to the decision of the first suit or appeals arising therefrom, no decree for recovery of mesne profits in the second suit can be passed unless the finding, of the appellants/defendants being in unauthorized occupation is returned in the first suit and attains finality.

21. Thus, pursuing the second suit in any case will not serve any useful purpose and even if it were to be held that enquiry into rate can go on, the same will unnecessarily take up the time of this Court at the cost of other matters as, in the event of the appellants/defendants in the first suit being held to be not in unauthorized occupation, such inquiry will be futile. Ordinarily this Court does not order contingent trials.

FAO(OS) 579/2013 & CM No. 20049/2013 (for stay)

Decided On: 13.05.2014

 Santosh Arora and Ors.Vs. M.L. Arora

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G. Rohini, C.J. and Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Read full judgment here: Click here
Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment