( 1 ) THE order of a Civil Judge dated 20/1/2001 has been assailed in this revision petition by the defendant whose application for consolidation of four civil suits which were being litigated between the parties, was dismissed.

( 2 ) FOLLOWING four civil suits are pending inter se parties. Three of them were filed by Ram Saroop, Sharma, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent and the fourth was filed by the petitioner. Civil suit no. 269/4990 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the premises from the petitioner. Evidence in this petition concluded and the case was fixed for final argument in 1995. Thereafter an application for additional evidence was filed, by the petitioner which had been allowed and the case is now pending for recording of additional evidence. Suit No. 355/1995 was also filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the petitioner. Issues have been framed in this case on 13/10/1999 and now it is at the stage of recording of the evidence of the respondents. Suit No. 69/1999 was again filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents for grant of relief of injunction for retraining the petitioner from selling/alienating the suit premises or creating any lien over it. The issues in this case have also been framed on 13/10/1999 and it is also fixed for recording of the evidence of the respondents. Fourth suit bearing No. 795/1993 (now numbered 113/1997) was filed by the petitioner against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed executed by one Hari Ram, tailor in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. It is at initial stages and the service of one of the defendants has not been effected as yet.

( 3 ) ALL the aforesaid four cases are on the file of one Civil Judge. The petitioner moved an application for their consolidation for the purpose of evidence and decision. In the application filed under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner alleged that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in his suits had alleged that he was the owner of the property and the petitioner/defendant, was a trespassers into it. He claimed title of the property by Virtue of a sale deed executed by Hari Ram, tailor in his favour. All these suits are in respect of same immovable property and are being litigated between the same parties. Common evidence is required to decide all these cases, therefore, It is appropriate that there should be consolidation"of four suits for the purpose of recording evidence and decision.

( 4 ) THE application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that all the suits are at different stages of the trial and the instant application is filed only to prolong the proceedings. The suit No. 269/1990 is at the stage of final hearing. Suit no. 355/1995 is at the stage of recording of the plaintiff s evidence and the petitioner has moved a frivolous application therein in order to prolong the proceeding. Suit No. 64/1999 is also fixed for arguments on ad interim Injunction application. The petitioner s suit is at the stage of service of the defendants and the issues have not been framed. It was prayed that the application should be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that all the four suits were at different stages and consolidation of these suits was not necessary and expedient and also in the interest of Justice. Counsel for petitioner has initially argued with the vehemence that common question of law i. e. the title of the disputed property required adjudication in,all these four civil suits and the separate decision in those suits will create problem and will also be prejudicial to the trial of, the subsequent suits as the judgment in the earlier suit would operate as resjudicata. However, at the fag and of the argum