(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tobeg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dated 22-11-2024 passed in I.A.No. 959 of 2024 IN O.S. No. 274 OF 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.278 of 2017on the file of Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and pass)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 22.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.959 of 2024 in O.S.No.274 of 2017 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

2. The petitioners are defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.274 of 2017.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the respondent filed the suit vide O.S.No.274 of 2017 for eviction of respondents from the petition schedule house and handing over its vacant possession and for arrears of rent. In the said suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.959 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC praying the court to club the said suit with O.S.No.108 of 2019, order common trial and commence evidence in O.S.No.108 of 2019, since a comprehensive suit. The respondent resisted the claim sought in the petition by filing counter contending that nature of both the suits is different and the agreement of sale based on which O.S.No.108 of 2019 was filed is a rank forgery and the petition is filed only to drag on the matter and clubbing of both the suits would cause prejudice to respondent and result in miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Judge upon considering the material and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition. The said dismissal order has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision Petition would contend that both the suits are in relation to the same subject property and clubbing of the suits and recording common evidence would not only avoid overlapping of evidence but would aid in effective adjudication of the dispute besides avoiding conflicting judgments. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge instead of deciding the petition on merits attaching much significance to a typographical error occurred in the petition in mentioning year of the suit to be clubbed, erroneously dismissed the petition. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

                  In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Smt. Ghousia Sulthana vs. P.Yuganddhar and others(Orders dated 11.11.2024 passed in CRP No.2616 of 2024).

6. Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed in trial Court, would contend that the petitioners in order to continue in possession of the property without paying rent, having been frustrated of filing ejectment suit by the landlord, brought into existence the agreement of sale by committing forgery, filed the suit for specific performance and since causes of action and the reliefs sought in both the suits are distinct and different, the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petition. He would further contend that clubbing of the suits would cause prejudice to the respondent and that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings endlessly and the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petition and the well considered order does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

                  In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on Kamlesh Baghel vs. Shrikrishna Yadav(2014 SCC OnLine MP 6836) and Hira Singh vs. Manmeet Kaur(2024 SCC OnLine AP 5185).

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The suit in O.S.No.274 of 2017 was filed by respondent against the petitioners for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit vide O.S.No.108 of 2019 for specific performance of agreement to sell. Both the suits were filed in respect of the same schedule property and parties of both the suits are similar.

9. In Chittivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement((2004) 3 SCC 85) referred to by the coordinate bench of this Court in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in Smt. Ghousia Sulthana (supra 1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para No.12 held thus:

                  “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 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 to 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.”

10. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would indicate that 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.

11. In another decision referred to in Smt. Ghousia Sulthana (supra 1), a coordinate bench of this Court in A.Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju v. R.Naga Venkata Vijayalakshmi(2022(5) ALT 698) at Para Nos.13 and 14 held thus:

                  “13. Point:

                  On every cause of action, the plaintiff could seek a relief as against the defendant. The procedure to try a civil suit is provided by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. On certain occasions, situations may develop where a suit instead of being considered alone would need be considered along with another suit. For instance, where subject matter of dispute is a residential premises or an agricultural land and that is in the occupation of a tenant or a lessee and in the event of a dispute between the landlord and tenant, the tenant finding an aggressive landlord may seek to protect his possession and seek a perpetual injunction against the landlord to prevent his unlawful interference. At about some time, the landlord having found a recalcitrant tenant not vacating the premises despite expiry of period of lease may sue his tenant seeking his ejectment and recovery of possession. Thus, the dispute may have given rise to two different suits for two different reliefs. It is in such occasion, the trial Court instead of trying both the matters separately may hold a joint trial or consolidate trial which means the evidence could be recorded in one of the comprehensive suits and that evidence would cover the disputes raised in both the suits and finally, a common judgment disposing of both the suits could be made. The reason for such consolidation is normally understood as one to avoid conflicting decisions. To have consistency of opinion on same facts leading to uniform decisions is one of the primary objectives that is to be achieved by any Court of law.

                  14. In what other matters consolidation of trials need to take place cannot be stated extensively. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has not made a particular provision prescribing the parameters for consolidation of suits. Therefore, as and when parties to the litigation and the Court trying them find it necessary to have a consolidated trial, the powers under Section 151 CPC, which speak about the powers that are inherent with every Court, are utilized. Broadly stated, this is how consolidation of suits takes place. In the context of above undisputed situation, now the case at hand has to be seen. The three separate suits filed by three different plaintiffs are to be tried separately in the normal course. It may be noted that all the pronotes had allegedly came into existence on the same day and though all the plaintiffs are related to one another so also the defendant in the suit is related to them, those factors by themselves do not make it a case of same transaction or series of transaction concerning each of the plaintiffs. To put it in other words, these three plaintiffs cannot join together and file one single suit as against the defendant. When that being the case, the inclination of the trial Court to have the suits tried separately cannot be found fault with. Trying each suit separately is the normal mode that is provided for under the law. Consolidation is an exception. Be it noted that each Court has wide discretionary power to control the conduct of proceedings before it (vide Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007)2 SCC 551 at 562) . Therefore, the order of the trial Court in not consolidating the three suits does not by itself cannot be termed as violation of any particular law especially that of any statute.”

12. The observations made in the above decision would indicate that the normal course as provided for under the law is trying an each suit separately. But, when the Court trying the suits find it necessary to consolidate trial, there is inherent power under Section 151 CPC to consolidate the suits for trial.

13. In Kamlesh Baghel (supra 2),the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held thus:

                  “Both the suits have different streams; the civil suit No. 20A/203 has been filed by the applicant, Kamlesh Baghel against Smt. Sharda Devi Tandon before II Additional District Judge, Vidisha seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property and for declaration that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sharda Devi Tandon in favour of Shrikrishna Yadav be declared null and void. The other suit No. 11A/2012 has been filed by Shrikrishna Yadav v. Kamlesh Baghel for eviction and arrears of rent, under the Rent Control Act, pending before the Court of III Civil Judge, Class- I, Vidisha. Both the suits are not between the same parties and also the issue involved in both the suits is different. Hence, consequences flowing therefrom are entirely different. That apart, by withdrawing the civil suit No. 11A/2012 from the file of III Civil Judge, Class-I, Vidisha to that of Additional District Judge, in fact, one right of appeal of either party shall stands extinguished.

                  In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Court below has not committed any error and there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order for exercising the revisional powers under section 115 CPC by this Court.”

14. In Hira Singh (supra 3), the High Court of Punjab and Haryanaat Chandigarh held thus:

                  “4. Petitioner and respondent are in litigation and three different proceedings are pending inter se. Petitioner has filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate. A civil suit has been filed by him for specific performance of an agreement allegedly entered into between the parties, which is pending before the same Court. A rent petition instituted by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner from the premises is pending before a separate Court. The nature of all the three proceedings is entirely different and are being tried by different courts, which have separate jurisdiction. The matters cannot be clubbed together…….”

15. Certain conditions, though not exhaustive, for consolidation of suits can be summarized as under:

                  (i) the parties are substantially the same.

                  (ii) Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits.

                  (iii) Common evidence is to be led, if parties are substantially the same, if only one party is common then burden of proof of facts in issue will on different persons and no common evidence can be led.

                  (iv) The consolidation in the aforesaid circumstances will fulfill the object of consolidation. Any other circumstances may be relevant then also the object of consolidation will be decisive for passing appropriate order.

16. In the instant suits, no doubt the parties are the same so also the subject property. In the suit filed by the landlord, the prime issue to be resolved is whether there is any default in payment of rent and if so whether a valid legal notice of demand and termination was served. Whereas, in the specific performance suit, the issues to be resolved are whether a valid, concluded, and enforceable agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff (tenant) and the defendant (landlord) and whether the tenant was, and has consistently been, ready and willing to perform their part of the contract (paying the balance consideration) from the date of the agreement until the date of the decree.

17. Therefore, though the parties are same so also the subject property, the evidence to be let in and the issues to be resolved in both the suits are distinct and different. Consolidation of suits is typically ordered to avoid conflicting decisions, save judicial time, and minimize costs, not solely based on the identity of parties or property. While shared parties and property are factors, if the issues are distinct, requiring different evidence, the Court may decline consolidation to prevent confusion.

18. In the above view of the matter, the learned trial Judge had rightly declined to consolidate the suits and the said order does not require any interference of this Court except for a direction to dispose of both the suits simultaneously.

19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The learned trial Judge shall dispose of both the suits simultaneously. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.