Ajit Singh vs Baljeet Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.

CR No. 15998-CII of 2013

Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Annexures R/1 to R/5 are taken on record.

CR No. 4121 of 2013

Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sonepat in civil suit No. 371 of 2007 titled ''Ajit vs. Baljeet and others'', whereby application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff for consolidating two civil suits i.e. one above mentioned civil suit and another is titled ''Lal Chand vs. Baljeet, pending in the Court of Ms. Varsha Jain, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sonepat.

Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner has filed civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against respondents no. 1 and 2. In the said civil suit, the petitioner has claimed that he is the adopted son of late Lal Chand (now represented by respondents no. 3 to 24). He was adopted by late Lal Chand through a registered adoption deed no. 176 dated 29.12.1976. The adoption ceremony was performed with a great pomp and show and photographs were also taken in the adoption ceremony. Lal Chand was unmarried and was the owner in possession of land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla, situate within the revenue limits of village Liwaspur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. By taking the undue advantage of old age of Lal Chand, respondents no. 1 and 2 got a collusive judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007 in respect of the above land and a civil suit titled ''Lal Chand vs. Baljeet and another'' has also been filed challenging the above judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007. Respondents no. 1 and 2 have contested the civil suit filed by the petitioner and challenged the adoption deed allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner. They have claimed that the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007 are legal and valid one and no fraud has been committed on late Lal Chand. It is further averred that not only the above suit, late Lal Chand also filed civil suit titled ''Lal Chand vs. Baljeet and another'' challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007. Respondents no. 1 and 2 have also contested the said civil suit and claimed that a valid decree was passed in their favour. It is further averred that the main issue between the parties is that "whether the judgment and decree of civil court passed in Civil Suit No. 220 of 2007 is illegal, null and void. The petitioner has moved application for consolidating the aforesaid two civil suits which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.5.2013 (Annexure P-7). Hence, this revision.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that both the civil suits need to be consolidated for proper and just decision of the matter and also for the purpose of avoiding conflicting judgments. The learned counsel has further contended that in both the civil suits, the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007 have been challenged and almost the same set of oral and documentary evidence would be needed to be adduced for the purpose of determining the issues of facts and law arising for decision in the two suits and there will be duplication of recording of evidence if separate trials are held. The learned counsel has further contended that if two judgments would be written for disposal of the suits, the possibility of recording of inconsistent findings and passing of conflicting decrees cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel has further contended that the impugned order dated 25.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) is illegal and perverse. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon Ramji Gupta and Another Vs. Gopi Krishan Agrawal (D) and Others, and Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement, .

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 has contended that both the above said suits are not same and also grounds are quite different. The learned counsel has further contended that both the suits are at different stages. The learned counsel has further contended that the impugned order has not prejudiced the right of the petitioner. The learned counsel has further contended that civil suit titled ''Ajit vs. Baljeet and other'' is at the stage of arguments and the applicant did not consider it proper to file the application for consolidation of both the civil suits at the initial stage for the reasons best know to him and application for consolidation of suits has been filed at a belated stage. The learned counsel has further contended that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

By filing the instant revision, the petitioner wants to get the civil suits captioned ''Ajit vs. Baljeet and another'' and ''Lal Chand vs. Baljeet and another'' consolidated. Admittedly, the consolidation of suits has not been provided for under any of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, but the same can be done in exercise of the powers u/s 151 of the CPC where a common question of fact and law arise therein. In both the civil suits, the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007 have been challenged on the same ground and if both the civil suits are not decided by same court simultaneously, there is a possibility of conflicting decisions by the Courts. The failure to decide simultaneously of the above two suits is likely to lead to a multiplicity of litigation and more expenses would be incurred by the parties for two different trials. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 are found distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, this Court taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down in Ramji Gupta and another (supra) is of the view that both the suits be decided by the same Court simultaneously.

In view of above, the impugned order dated 25.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) is set aside and it is directed that civil suit titled "Lal Chand vs. Baljeet" and civil suit titled "Ajit Singh vs. Baljeet" shall be decided simultaneously by one Court. Since civil suit titled "Lal Chand vs. Baljeet" is at the stage of recording of evidence, therefore, the evidence will be concluded in that case and both the civil suits would be decided by same court simultaneously. Disposed of.