Honble ASOPA, J.–By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure-3) passed in civil suit No. 96/01 pending before the Additional District Judge, Sikar whereby the Additional District Judge refused to consolidate the four civil suits for recovery of money on the ground that the plaintiffs are different, cause of actions and amount are different and further merely because the defendant is common a such cases cannot be consolidated. It was also observed that in Section 10 CPC there is no provision of consolidation nor in any other provision of CPC such cases can be consolidated.

(2). Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed four separate civil suit against petitioners for recovery of different amount which become due on different dates against petitioner-defendants, and all the civil suits are pending before Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sikar. The details of the suits number and amount is as under:–

S. No. Title of suit No. of suit Amount recoverable

1. Vinod Kumar Sharda vs. Anurag & Company 98/2001 4,30,254/-

2. Arun Kumar vs. Anurag & Company 36/01 (95/01) 2,75,935/-

3. Sanjay Kumar Sharda vs. Anurag & Company 37/01 (96/01) 3,40,274/-

4. Parwati Devi 94/2001 2,12,725/-

Sharda vs. Anurag & Company

(3). The petitioners have filed written statements in all the aforesaid civil suit in which the evidence of the respondents plaintiffs have been completed and the cases are fix for the evidence of the petitioners-defendants.

(4). An application under Section 10 read with 151 CPC was filed in civil suit No. 96/2001 on or about on 4.12.2004 on the ground that the defendants in all civil suits are common, subject matter is same and evidence of the defendant (petitioner) will be identical in all the four suits and in case all the suits are tried separately then there is possibility of conflicting findings/judgments. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice and to avoid the complications of separate trials, the suits may be consolidated. The relevant para of the application is reproduced hereunder:–

^^izfroknh Hkh ,d gh gS rFkk mDr pkjksa oknksa esa izfroknh dh lk{; Hkh ,d leku gh gksuh gS rFkk ;fn mDr pkjksa oknksa dh vUoh{kk vyx vyx :i ls dh tkrh gS rks mDr pkjksa oknksa ds fu.kZ; esa fofHkUurk vkus dh iw.kZ lEHkkouk gS bl dkj.k mijksDr of.kZr pkjksa oknksa dks lesfdr fd;k tkdj ,d lkFk gh lquokbZ fd;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vko;d gS rkfd mDr oknksa dh vyx vyx vUoh{kk ls mRiUu gksus okyh tfVyrkvksa dks jksdk tk lds bl dkj.k U;k; fgr esa mijksDr of.kZr pkjksa oknksa dks lesfdr fd;k tkuk vR;Ur gh vko;d gSA**

(5). In reply to the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners-defendant respondent-plaintiff submitted that it is wrong to say that all the defendants are common in the said civil suits. In civil suit No. 94/2001 defendants are not common and there is no possibility of conflicting judgments as the respondents-plaintiff have no objection if all the suits are heard simultaneously. The relevant portion of reply filed by the respondents-plaintiffs read as under:–

^^;g fd mijksDr muokuh okn i= Jheku th ds U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gksuk rFkk blds vfrfjDr bl vkosnu i= esa of.kZr vU; rhu okn Hkh Jheku~ th ds U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gksuk vkSj fopkjk/khu gksuk lgh gS rFkk buesa rkjh[k isfk;ka 20-12-2004 fu;r gksuk Hkh lgh gS vr% Lohdkj gS] ks"k vak ftl izdkj ls of.kZr gS] xyr gSA vr% vLohdkj gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mijksDr pkjksa okn ,d gh fo"k; oLrq ls laca/k j[krs gks rFkk izfroknhx.k Hkh ,d gh gksA izLrqr nkok esa rFkk nkok la[;k 95@2001 ,oa nkok la[;k 93@2001 esa izfroknhx.k leku gS fdUrq nkok la[;k 94@2001 esa izfroknhx.k leku ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mijksDr pkjksa oknksa esa izfroknh dh lk{; ,d leku gh gksuh gksA mijksDr pkjksa oknksa dh lquokbZ vyx vyx fd;s tkus esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ dkuwuh ck/kk ugha gS vkSj u gh buesa fu.kZ;ksa esa dksbZ fHkUurk mRiUu gksus dh fdafpr ek= gh laHkkouk gSA mijksDr pkjksa oknksa dks U;k;fgr esa lesfdr fd;k t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document