Dr. TIWARI, M.—This revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') is directed against the impugned order dated 1.5.2006 of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur (Second) by which he consolidated two revenue suits for joint trial.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that there are two revenue suits pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur with regard to the same suit lands. Suit No. 292/1996 is filed by Ramswaroop adopted son of Prahalad against Ghisi Lal and others under Section 88 and 188 of the Act with regard to the suit lands described in para 1 of the plaint. Another suit No. 77/1999 is filed by Ghisi Lal and Mool Chand against Ramswaroop and others with regard to the same suit lands under Section 88 and 53 of the Act. In suit No. 292/1996 'Ramswaroop vs. Ghisi Lal and Others', the non-petitioner No.2 Moolchand filed an application before Sub-Divisional Officer Jaipur for consolidation of the two suits for joint trial, mainly on the grounds that the subject matter of dispute is the same and the parties to the two suits are almost the same. This application for consolidation of two suits was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide its impugned order dated 1.5.2006, aggrieved against which the petitioner has preferred present revision petition in this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that suit No. 272/1996 was filed earlier than the suit No. 77/1999 as such suit No. 292/1996 cannot be clubbed with the suit No. 77/1999. Under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code only later filed suit can be stayed, but there is no provision for consolidation of suits. It was also contended that cause of actions in both the suits are different. Even parties to both the suits are different. It is also pleaded that both the suits are at the different stage of trial. Consolidation would lead to unnecessary delay in disposal of the petitioner-plaintiff suit. As such there is no justification for consolidation of two suits. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court is non-speaking as such it deserves to be set aside.

5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that both the suits are at the stage of framing of issues. But, since the subject matter of the dispute is the same and parties to the suits are also almost the same, common issues can be framed and common evidence can be led and joint decision can be taken to avoid conflicting judgments in two suits about the same suit lands. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also passed an order dated 12.5.2008 directing the trial Court to decide the suits within three months. But the petitioner, on one pretext or other, is delaying the trial of the suits. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners pleaded that there was nothing illegal in the impugned order of trial Court which has inherent powers to consolidate two identical suits pending in his Court.

6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order and gone through the material on record.

7. It is evident from perusal of the record that two revenue suits (No. 292/1996 and 77/1999) are pending before Sub-Divisional Officer Jaipur (Second) with regard to the same suit lands. In the suit filed by Ramswaroop. Ghisi Lal and Mool Chand are the defendants along with Gautam and Company. In suit (No.77/1999) filed by Ghisi Lal and Mool Chand, Ramswaroop along with others are defendants. Perusal of the plaint of each suit reveals that the suit lands in both the suits are exactly the same. Even relief sought in two suits are also almost the same: in suit No.292/1996 the relief sought is about declaration of khatedari rights and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit lands whereas relief sought in suit No. 77/1999 is about declaration of khatedari rights as well as division of suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document