ORDER :

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2129/2021

1. These writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendants being aggrieved with the orders dated 21.11.2020 and 02.09.2021 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Suit No.81/2019.

2. The trial court vide order dated 21.11.2020 dismissed the application filed under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the petitioner/defendants with a prayer for consolidating the Suit Nos.81/2019 and 198/2018 and vide order dated 02.09.2021 dismissed another application preferred under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the petitioner/defendants with a prayer to stay the proceedings of Suit No.198/2018 pending before it.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff-Lodha Filling Station (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the respondent/plaintiff–firm’) through its proprietor Praveen Singh Lodha filed the Suit No.81/2019 (earlier Suit No.18/2017) before the District Court, Udaipur against the petitioner/defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,30,000/-. In the said suit, the proprietor of respondent/plaintiff-firm has contended that he is operating a retail outlet of petroleum products and the petitioner/defendants got filled the diesel worth of Rs.37,27,231.91/-in the tankers owned by them during the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, however, has paid part amount of Rs.17,83,887/-and has not paid the remaining amount of Rs.19,43,344.91/-. It is alleged that despite repeated request, the said outstanding amount has not been paid, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff-firm is entitled for recovery of the said amount along with the interest and notice expenses.

4. The petitioner/defendants have filed written statements in the Suit No.81/2019 (earlier Suit No.18/2017) and denied the averments of the plaint while claiming that they did not purchase any diesel for their tankers from the respondent/plaintiff-firm and have alleged that the outstanding account of the respondent/plaintiff-firm is fallacious and untrue. The petitioner/defendants have alleged that the proprietor of the respondent/plaintiff-firm and the petitioner/defendant No.1 are in the same business and they become known to each other and on the advise of proprietor of the respondent/plaintiff-firm, the petitioner/defendant No.1 purchased the tankers and started transportation business. It is also alleged that the transportation business of the petitioner/defendants in the name of Salasar Logistics is taken care by proprietor of the respondent/plaintiff-firm viz. Praveen Singh Lodha and in that process he got prepared stationery of business of Salasar Logistics including various seals from petitioner/defendant No.1 in the name of business need and thereafter committing fraud and has prepared some forged documents.

5. The respondent/plaintiff-firm filed the Suit No.81/2019 (earlier Suit No.18/2017) agner/defendants before the District Judge, Udaipur on 14.02.2017, however, during the pendency of the said suit, another Suit No.198/2018 (earlier Suit No.201/2018) was filed against them before it on behalf of Shri Rajendra Suri Travels (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the plaintiff-firm) through its proprietor Praveen Singh Lodha for recovery of an amount of Rs.77,10,770/-alleging that the petitioner/defendants took loan of Rs.42,20,000/-from plaintiff-firm from time to time for a period running between 29.07.2013 to 07.07.2014, however, the said loan amount has not been repaid and as such the petitioner/defendants is entitled to recovery of Rs.42,20,000/-along with the interest of Rs.34,90,770/-in total Rs.77,10,770/-.

6. In the said suits, the petitioner/defendants submitted the written statements and alleged that no such loan has every been taken by them. In the written statements, similar allegations have been levelled as levelled in the written statements of Suit No.198/2018 (earlier Suit No.201/2018) contending that proprietor of Shri Rajendra Suri Travel viz. Praveen