Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2937 (ALL)

Mewati Devi v. Murali Gupta

2015-09-16

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 14 May 2015 passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No. 502 of 2014 whereby, the application 54 Ga filed by the defendants in the said suit has been allowed and Original Suit No. 502 of 2014 has been consolidated with Original Suit No. 603 of 2014 and Original Suit No. 502 of 2014 instituted by the petitioners has been made the leading case. The petitioners have also assailed the validity of the order dated 28 August 2015 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur in Civil Revision No. 141 of 2015 dismissing the revision and affirming the order of the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case the suits are tried separately, it would be convenient to the parties to lead evidence, inasmuch as, the plaintiffs in both the suits are different. He further submitted that the suit property is also not the same. 3. The trial Court in the impugned order has noted that though the plaintiffs in the two suits are different, but the defendants in both the suits are one and the same and the suit property in the two suits are adjoining properties and thus, in case the suits are consolidated, then both the matters could be decided on the evidence led therein and it would also facilitate the trial of both the suits. The Revisional Court has affirmed the order passed by the trial Court by concurring with the finding recorded by it. 4. Under Order IVA, Rule 1 CPC, the Court has the power to direct consolidation of suits in cases where two or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same Court and the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to direct their joint trial. In the instant case, the trial Court has passed the impugned order in exercise of such power after holding that in case the trial is held after consolidation of the suits, it would be in the interest of justice. 5. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or any illegality, which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.