Roopa Rani vs Meena Ghai & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Roorkee in O.S.No.51 of 2007 Chamanlal & anr. vs. Meena Ghai and further judgment dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure No. 2) passed by 1st A.D.J. Roorkee in Civil Revision No.98 of 2017 Smt. Roopa Rani vs. Meena Ghai & ors..

Facts, in brief, are that Chamanlal (respondent no.5) and petitioner filed a suit no.51 of 2007, Chamanlal & ors. vs. Smt. Meena Ghai & ors., in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Roorkee, against the defendants (respondent no.1 and 2 herein) seeking perpetual prohibitory injunction. Subsequently, respondent no. 4 herein has filed O.S. No.54 of 2007 Satprakash vs. Reena & others for cancellation of sale deed dated 31.10.2006. Respondent no. 6 and 7 herein also filed O.S.No.148 of 2013, Champa Rani & anr. vs. Kanihya Lal & ors. for partition of 1/7 share of the property in dispute. Since, all these three suits pertaining to one disputed parties, having common parties, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application for consolidation of all the three suits to avoid conflict findings in the matter. The trial court vide order dated 12.07.2017 had rejected the application on the count that though, witnesses in all the cases may be same but parties have to adduce different evidence in these three cases, as suit no. 191 of 2017 is pertaining to prohibitory injunction, suit no.54 of 2007 pertaining to cancellation of sale deed and suit no.148 of 2013 pertaining to partition.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred civil revision no.98 of 2017 Smt. Rupa Rani vs. Smt. Meena Ghai and ors. Learned revisional court reiterating the reasons recorded by the trial court affirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the revision by order dated 8.02.2019.

Heard learned counsel for the parties

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that during pendency of the suits, issues have been framed in all the suit, and one common issue has been involved in all the suits- whether the property in dispute is a joint property and liable to be partitioned between the parties in accordance with their share? It is further submitted that since property in question is same and common evidence is to be adduced by the parties, and just to avoid conflict findings, all the three suits ought to be consolidated in view of provisions contained under Order IV-A of C.P.C. (amended vide U.P. Act 57 of 1976, Section 5 (1-1-1977). Order IV-A is extracted hereunder.

Consolidation of Suits and Proceedings.- When tow or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same court, and the court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may be order or directed their joint trial, whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits or proceedings.

He would further contend that the trial court committed illegality in not consolidating all these three cases, as the subject matter in all the cases is same and common evidence ought to be adduced by the parties. He would further contend that the purpose of consolidating the all the three suit is just to avoid the conflicting findings on the issues and to save the valuable time of the court.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 would contend that witnesses are not common in the matter and the court has to record independent findings on all the issues.

It is true that all the issues are not common but facts remain that one common issue is involved in all these matters and same set of evidence is to be adduced by the parties. Though, the trial court will record independent findings on all the issues, in all three cases but for adjudication of these cases and to save the precious time of the court, all the cases are liable to consolidated.

In view of the above, the impugned judgments and orders dated 12.07.2017 and 06.02.2019 are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Application no.191 C is allowed. Suit nos.51 of 2007, 54 of 2007 and 148 of 2013 are consolidated. Since, the suits are pending since long, the trial court shall ensure the expeditious disposal of the cases. Unnecessary adjournment to the parties shall be avoided.

No order as to costs.