Skip to content


State of Rajasthan Vs. Dewan Suraj Prakash - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberPetn. Nos. 19 and 22 of 1972
Judge
Reported in1972()WLN617
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151
AppellantState of Rajasthan
RespondentDewan Suraj Prakash
Appellant Advocate R.N. Munshi Addl. Adv. General,
Respondent Advocate P.N. Dutt, Adv.
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - section 151 and order 45 rule 4--two appeals from suit--whether both can be consolidated under section 151.;in the circumstances of the present case consolidation should be allowed under inherent powers of the court under section 151, c.p.c. although order 45 rule 4, c.p.c., does not apply in terms because there two appeals arise out of one suit. - .....be allowed under inherent powers of the court under section 151. civil p. c., although order 45, rule 4, civil p. c., does not apply in terms because these two appeals arise out of suit.2. the suit out of which the appeals arise was filed by respondent for the recovery of a sum of rs. 1,84,281.92 against the state. the respondent is a contractor, who executed some work for the state. he claimed that he was not paid in full for the work executed by him. 19 issues were framed in the suit the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent for rs. 95,902.87. both the state and the respondent appealed against the decree. the valuation of the appeal of the state (no. 103 of 1963} was rs. 95,902.87. the valuation of the appeal of the respondent (no 130 of 1963) was rs. 68,172.15......
Judgment:
ORDER

1. These are connected petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The valuation of one appeal is above Rs. 20,000/- and that of the other is below Rs. 20,000/-. An application has been filed under Order 45. Rule 4 read with Section 151, Civil P. C.. for consolidation of the two appeals for the purpose of valuation. This application has been opposed on behalf of the respondent. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that in the circumstances of the present case consolidation should be allowed under inherent powers of the Court under Section 151. Civil P. C., although Order 45, Rule 4, Civil P. C., does not apply in terms because these two appeals arise out of suit.

2. The suit out of which the appeals arise was filed by respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,84,281.92 against the State. The respondent is a contractor, who executed some work for the State. He claimed that he was not paid in full for the work executed by him. 19 issues were framed in the suit The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent for Rs. 95,902.87. Both the State and the respondent appealed against the decree. The valuation of the appeal of the State (No. 103 of 1963} was Rs. 95,902.87. The valuation of the appeal of the respondent (No 130 of 1963) was Rs. 68,172.15. Both these appeals were decided by this Court by one judgment. The appeal of the State was allowed in part and the appeal of the respondent was also allowed in part. In the result a decree for Rs. 83,146.78 was passed in favour of the respondent by this Court. Two decrees were framed as a result of the decision of the appeals by this Court. It has been necessary for the State to file two appeals challenging both the decrees. The findings on some common issues are involved in the two appeals. There is all the more reason in such cases, in our opinion, to consolidate the appeals than in cases arising out of two suits which are envisaged under Order 45, Rule 4. Civil P. C.

3. We accordingly allow the consolidation of the two appeals. The valuation of the consolidated appeal is over Rs 20,000/-. We issue a Certificate under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. Costs on parties.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //