IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in rejecting consolidation of suits at different stages to avoid delays and conflicting decrees.

ORDER :

(Kuldeep Mathur, J.)

1. These two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside the impugned orders dated 30.9.2024 (Annex.7 in W.P.No.17527/2024) and (Annex.6 in W.P.No.17468/2024) passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in C.O Cases. Nos.53/2013: “Pratap Singh v. Chain Singh & Ors.” and 206/2023: “Smt.Pushpa Kunwar & Ors. v. Pratap Singh & Ors.”, whereby the separate applications moved by the petitioners under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking consolidation of the above-numbered civil suits have been rejected by separate orders.

2. A perusal of the record of the case indicates that on 28.5.2013, the respondent Pratap Singh filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the present petitioners and other proforma respondents. In the said plaint, it was stated that in the year 1969, the father of the plaintiff and defendants (late Shri Swaroop Singh) started a business of snacks (Namkeen) in the name and style of “Indore Namkeen Bhandar”. In due course of time, their sons also joined the said business. The description and details of the properties, of which partition was sought, were mentioned in the Schedule-A attached with the plaint. It was stated in the plaint that Swaroop Singh expired on 10.1.2012. It was further stated in the plaint that one of the brothers namely Shri Narendra Singh unfortunately expired in an accident on 5.1.2010 and therefore, his legal heirs were also impleaded as party defendants. In the plaint, it was averred that the properties mentioned in Schedule-A belong to a joint hindu family, wherein all the parties have their respective shares, therefore, the decree for partition was prayed to be passed.

3. The case file further reveals that after about 10 years of the pendency of the above-mentioned C.O. Case No.53/2013, the petitioners filed a suit (C.O. Case No. 206/2023) seeking partition of the joint hindu properties mentioned in Para No.8 to 15 and permanent injunction against the respondents. The present petitioners in the suit filed by them also claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month from the year 1969 till the matter is pending adjudication. Further, the registration made in the name of “M/s. I.N.B.Foods Pvt.Ltd.” in place of “Indore Namkeen Bhandar” on 28.3.2012 was prayed to be declared null and void. The petitioners herein also claimed their respective shares in the.

4. The record of the case further indicates that the petitioners herein moved separate applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in C.O. Case No. 53/2013 and C.O. Case No. 206/2023 with a prayer for consolidation of both the suits. The petitioners averred in the applications that the issue in both the suits is regarding partition of the joint hindu family properties between the common parties, therefore, both the suits be consolidated and be heard together for proper adjudication of the disputed questions.

5. The learned trial court i.e. learned Additional District No.2, Udaipur on 30.9.2024 rejected the applications filed in C.O. Case No. 53/2013 and C.O. Case No. 206/2023 under Section 151 CPC seeking consolidation of both the suites, by separate orders.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently and fervently submitted that the issue arising for decision in both the civil suits is substantially common. Almost the same set of oral and documentary evidence would be needed to determine the issues of facts and law arising for decision in two separate suits. Learned counsel submitted that a consolidation of both the suits will give a clear picture of the dispute in question and will avoid passing of conflicting decrees for the property in question. It was urged that the learned trial court with a view to avoid the possibility of two different findings in two suits preferred with the same set of facts and being related to same properties, ought not to have