Analogous hearing of cases involving the same parties and issues is crucial to prevent duplication of evidence and conflicting judgments, ensuring judicial efficiency.

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 18th June, 2019 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Basudevpur in CS No.148 of 2015 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner under Section 151 CPC for analogous hearing of the suit along with CS No.115 of 2015 pending in the said Court, has been rejected.

3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that CS No.148 of 2015 has been filed by the Petitioner for declaration of right, title and interest and for permanent injunction over the suit property against the Opposite Parties. CS No.115 of 2015 has been filed by the Opposite Party No.1 against the Petitioner for permanent injunction in respect of the self same property. The issues involved in both the suits are common. Hence, before commencement of trial of the suits, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed for analogous hearing of both the suits. Learned trial Court erroneously holding that the issues involved in both the suits are not similar and parties are not common in both the suits, dismissed the application. Hence this CMP has been filed.

4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.1 have purchased the suit property from the Defendants-Opposite Party Nos.2 to 6. The Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.1 are litigating in respect of the self same property. Whereas the Petitioner claims right, title and interest and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, the Defendant No.1 has filed the suit for injunction-simplicitor in respect of the self same property.

Thus, to avoid multiple recording of evidence and conflicting decisions, both the suits should be heard analogously. Further, analogous hearing of both the suits will save the judicial time of the Court. These aspects were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-6 and to direct learned trial Court for analogous hearing of both the suits.

5. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 although admits that both the parties are litigating in respect of the self same property, but submits that the issues in both the suits are not similar and the parties are not common, as rightly observed by learned trial Court. The reliefs claimed in both the suits are also different. He, therefore, submits that learned trial Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order.

6. Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submits that he has no instruction in the matter.

7. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the property involved in both the suits are same. Both the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 have purchased the self same property from Opposite Party Nos.2 to 6 who are the Defendant Nos.2 to 6 in CS No.148 of 2015. In CS No.148 of 2015, the Petitioner claims right, title and interest and in respect of the suit schedule property and permanent injunction against Defendant-Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 in his suit i.e., CS No.115 of 2015 prays for permanent injunction against the Plaintiff in respect of the self same subject matter of dispute. Thus, in order to avoid duplication in recording of evidence and possibility of conflicting decisions, both the suits should be heard analogously. Learned counsel for the Parties submits that both the suits are ready for hearing and trial of the suits has not yet commenced in both the suits. Both the suits are pending in the same Court. Thus, for the interest of justice and for