The main legal principle established is that a joint trial can be ordered to avoid contradictory verdicts and multiplicity of judicial decisions when some properties and issues are common in multiple suits arising from the same transaction or series of transactions.

JUDGMENT

ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order No. 52, dated November 14th , 2018, rejecting the prayer for stay, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Serampore, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 4629 of 2014, present revisional application has been preferred under article 227 of the constitution of India.

2. Petitioners' case in a nutshell is that late Pratap Chandra Santra, grandfather of the petitioners, was the owner of different plots of land situated in Mouza-ugardaha, Hooghly. Said Pratap Chandra Santra died leaving behind three sons, namely Bijoy Santra , Nayan Santra and Sudhir Santra, who became the owner of the properties left by Pratap Chandra Santra in equal share. Subsequently aforesaid three sons of Pratap Chandra Santra died leaving behind their respective legal heirs. The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of aforesaid late Sudhir Chandra Santra, son of Late Pratap Chandra Santra and they along with their sisters became joint owners of 1/3 share of the properties left by deceased Sudhir Chandra Santra. Subsequently daughters of late Sudhir Chandra Santra transferred their share in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein and furthermore they also purchased undivided share /portion of some of the co-sharers of the aforesaid property. as the petitioners herein were facing difficulties in enjoying their portion /share of the property , they filed suit for partition being Title Suit No. 151/2011 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Hooghly which was subsequently transferred to the court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Serampore, Hooghly and re-numbered as Title Suit No. 798/2014 (hereinafter called as T.S. No. 798/2014).

3. During the pendency of the said suit for partition the opposite parties herein i.e. some of the defendants of said partition suit being T.S. No.798/2014, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 4629 of 2014 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court, Serampore, Hooghly, praying for declaration of their title and permanent injunction, in respect of some of the joint properties involved in the said partition suit. Petitioners herein were impleaded as defendants in the aforesaid later Title Suit No. 4629/2014.

4. Be it mentioned that the suit property in connection with previously instituted partition suit being T.S. No. 798/2014 is comprising of R.S plot No. 77,78,79,81,55,96,97 and 98 in ugardaha Mouza ,Hooghly and the suit property of the said subsequently instituted T.S. No. 4629/2014 praying for declaration of title and injunction, comprising of R.S. plot No. 77,82,80,78,79 and 81 of the said Mouza.

5. accordingly present petitioners as defendant in T.S. No.4629 of 2014 filed an application under section 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as C.P.C.) praying for stay of all further proceedings of said subsequently instituted suit being Title Suit No. 4629/2014, till the disposal of the above mentioned previously instituted partition suit filed by the petitioners herein, being T.S. No. 798/2014. The opposite parties herein as plaintiffs in said Title Suit No. 4629/2014, filed their written objection against petitioners' said application under section 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties was pleased to reject the petitioners/defendants' prayer for stay of subsequently instituted Title Suit No. 4629/2014, by passing impugned order No. 52 dated 14.11.2018.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned order dated 14.11.2018 petitioners herein preferred the present revisional application interalia on the grounds:-

(a) Matter in issue i.e. some of the suit properties in both the suits are common but the learned court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction, in rejecting the petitioners' application under section 10, in as much as the decision in th