Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 287 (RAJ)

Narendra Singh v. Jai Singh

2016-02-19

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 16.1.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby the applications filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 11-plaintiffs seeking consolidation of the suits filed by them have been accepted and three suits being Suit Nos.165/2007, 166/2007 & 167/2007 have been ordered to be consolidated. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 11-plaintiffs Jai Singh and 10 others filed suits against Ujindan and others seeking declaration, partition, declaration of sale deed being void and permanent injunction. The petitioners herein Narendra Singh and Sampat Singh were impeladed as parties in Suit Nos.166/2007 & 167/2007 as transferees as well along with other defendants. All the defendants and plaintiffs were identical. 3. The written statements were filed by the defendants disputing the averments made in the plaints. After the issues were framed, the plaintiffs filed application under Section 151 CPC in two suits inter-alia with the averments that the plaintiffs have filed three different suits for challenging three different sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants; the suits pertains to estate of Late Shri Ujindan and similar issues have been framed in all the three suits; the evidence of the plaintiffs and defendants is similar and therefore, it would be appropriate, if the single evidence is taken in three suits, the same would facilitate hearing and judgment in the suits and avoid conflicting decisions and therefore, the suits be consolidated with Suit No.165/2007. 4. Though no reply to the application was filed, the same was resisted by the defendants. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that in all the three suits, the dispute is whether the property is joint and ancestral and whether the three sale deeds dated 13.9.2007 executed were null and void; the issues framed in the three suits were common and therefore, it would be appropriate to consolidate the three suits so as to avoid possibility of conflicting decrees and relying on judgment of this Court in Shikhar Chand v. Suresh Chand, 2008 (2) RLW 1140 allowed the application and ordered for consolidation of two suits with Suit No.165/2007. 6. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed error in accepting the application for consolidation, inasmuch as, in the three suits, the cause of action are different as the three different suits have been filed seeking declaration regarding three different sale deeds executed in favour of three different persons and therefore, the suits should have been permitted to be proceeded separately, at best, the trial court could have ordered that the three suits will proceed simultaneously. It was prayed that the order passed by the trial court deserves to be set-aside. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 8. Learned counsel has also produced the issues, which have been framed in the three suits. 9. A bare perusal of the plaint in the three suits being Suit Nos.165/2007, 166/2007 & 167/2007 reveals that the suit essentially have been filed seeking partition by metes and bounds of the estate of Late Shri Ujindan and further declaration has been sought that the sale deeds executed by the defendants in favour of three transferees regarding which three suits were filed be declared null and void. Except for the description of the property comprised in the sale deeds dated 13.9.2007, the plaintiffs and defendants are identical. 10. Similarly, except for the defendant, who has signed the written statements in three suits being defendants No.2, 25 and 32 respectively, the written statements are also identical and a perusal of the issues framed on 9.11.2013, also shows that the issues are also identical and qua the issues burden of which has been placed of the defendants, the burden has been placed jointly on defendants No.2, 25 and 32 along with defendant No.1 & 5, which clearly indicates that the plaint, written statement and issues are identical in the matter and so far as the subject matter of the suits are concerned, except for the land comprised in respective sale deeds and the amount of consideration, the same are identical. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85 , while considering the aspect of consolidation of suits held and observed as under:- "12. The two suits ought not to be tried separately. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85 , while considering the aspect of consolidation of suits held and observed as under:- "12. The two suits ought not to be tried separately. Once the suit at Rewa has reached the Court at Visakhapatnam, the two suits shall be consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision. The Trial Court may frame consolidated issues. The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the Court flowing from Section 151 of the CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the Civil Court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. The evidence having been recorded, common arguments need be addressed followed by one common judgment. However, as the suits are two, the Court may, based on the common judgment, draw two different decrees or one common decree to be placed on the record of the two suits. This is how the Trial Court at Visakhapatnam shall proceed consequent upon this order of transfer of suit from Rewa to the Court at Visakhapatnam." 12. The similar view has been taken by this Court in Hargovind Singh @ Channi Sardar & Anr. v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., S.B. Civil writ Petition No.8895/2009 decided on 9.9.2009 at Jaipur Bench. 13. In view of the above decision, no interference is called for in the orders impugned. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.