( 1. ) BRIEFLY stated facts relevant for the purposes of this writ petition are that the suit property earlier belonged to one Ramnath. Ramnath had a son, namely, Rameshwar Dayal and a daughter Parwati Bai. Rameshwar Dayal had three sons and two daughters. Kriparam is one of his children. According to parwati Bai, after the death of Ramnath name of Rameshwar Dayal alone was entered in the revenue record in respect of the entire property left by Ramnath. After the death of Rameshwar Dayal, Kriparam sold l/3rd share vide registered sale deed dated 10-09-03 to Raju Singh Bhadoriya (respondent No. 2 ).

( 2. ) IN the back drop of the aforesaid events, Parwati Bai instituted a suit bearing No. 6-A/04 (new No. 63-A/08) with an allegation that she had half share in the property and Kriparam could not have sold 1/3rd. This apart, it was stated that there being no partition, Kriparam was not competent to execute registered sale deed in favour of Raju Singh Bhadoriya. Accordingly, a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was instituted against various defendants including raju Singh Bhadoriya (respondent No. 2), who is the main contesting party.

( 3. ) SUBSEQUENTLY, another civil suit bearing No. 9-A/04 (new No. 62- A/08) was instituted by Kriparam with certain allegations. He also sought relief that registered sale deed dated 10-09-03 may be quashed/cancelled or declared illegal and ineffective.

( 4. ) PARWATI Bai submitted an application under Section 10 of CPC in Civil Suit no. 9-A/04 (instituted by Kriparam) that in view of her suit (Civil Suit No. 6-A/04)being earlier one, proceedings of the subsequent suit may be stayed. This application was rejected and the same was challenged in writ petition No. 2228/04. This court vide order dated 05-10-05 stayed the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 9-A/04 and gave opportunity to the parties to the litigation to move an appropriate application before the District Judge concerned for seeking consolidation of both the suits.

( 5. ) IT is important to note that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, no application for consolidation was submitted by any of the parties till March, 2009.

( 6. ) IT is stated at bar that in Civil Suit No. 6-A/04 (new No. 63-A/08) evidence of Parwati Bai as well as of defendants No. 1 to 5 has been recorded. Statement of Raju Singh Bhadoriya (defendant No. 6) has also been recorded. However, four witnesses of Raju Singh Bhadoriya are yet to be examined.

( 7. ) AS regards Civil Suit No. 9-A/04, it is admitted that proper court fee has not been paid despite direction of the trial Court and written statement from defendants is still awaited.

( 8. ) AN application under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer for consolidation of both the suits was filed on 06-04-09 by respondents No. 2 and 3 here in which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 21-04-09 by the Court of learned sixth Additional District Judge, Bhind (Fast Track), which has been assailed on behalf of Parwati Bai in the present writ petition.

( 9. ) SHRI N. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that direction of this Court was issued on 05-10-05 to move an application for consolidation by any of the parties. Pursuant thereto no such application was filed with promptness within reasonable time. it is only after closure of plaintiffs evidence as well as of defendants No. 1 to 5, such an application is moved which cannot be allowed looking to the status of the earlier suit.

( 10. ) SHRI. SETH, learned counsel for the contesting respondents countered it with a say that the application has been allowed pursuant to this Courts direction and there being no jurisdictional error, the petition is liable to dismissal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus V. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, AIR 1984 SC 38.

( 11. ) CONSIDERED the submissions and perused the record.

( 12. ) CONSOLIDATION of suits is not specifically provided in Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to t