ORDER

1. This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner / defendant against the order dated 8.3.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed in Civil Suit No.103-A/2016 by the Civil Judge Class-I Indore, District Indore (MP) whereby the petitioner’s application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for consolidation of two suits has been rejected.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent / plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.103-A/2016 (Annexure P/3) for eviction of the petitioner / defendant in respect of Shop No.89 and 13-14, RNT Marg, Dawa Bazar, Indore.

3. The aforesaid plaint has been opposed by the petitioner /defendant by filing a written statement, traversing the averments made in the plaint and also stating that the plaintiff and the defendant are the real brothers, and the disputed property is purchased out of the funds of Joint Hindu Family Property. Hence, another suit has also been filed by the petitioner / defendant (Mahesh s/o Late Ghuriyomal Punjabi) being Civil Suit No.1319-A/2019 for declaration of title over the aforesaid suit property, being a Member of the Joint Hindu Family Property. The aforesaid suit is pending and has been transferred by the District & Sessions Judge, Indore vide order dated 19.02.2021 passed in MJC No.44/2021 in the Court where the suit (Civil Suit No.103-A/2016) filed by the respondent / plaintiff is pending.

4. Since two suits between the same parties were filed in connection with the same property, the petitioner / defendant filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for consolidation of Civil Suit No.1319-A/2019 with the present Civil Suit No.103-A/2016, so that both the civil suits which belong to the Joint Hindu Family Property may be decided together. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner / defendant came to be rejected by the Civil Court on 8.3.2021, which is under challenge before this Court.

5. Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in both the cases, common question which is to be decided by the Court is regarding the ownership of the property; and in case, if they are not consolidated, it would give rise to unnecessary complications and multiplicity of the proceedings.

6. In support of his submissions, counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Premlal Nahata & others v. Chandiprasad Sikariya reported as (2007) 2 SCC 551. Another cited judgment of the Supreme Court is in the case of Mahalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & others v. Ashabai Atmaram Patel through Legal Heirs & others reported as (2013) 2 SCC 404 in which the Supreme Court has held that in appropriate cases, consolidation is justified, as the purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort; and also to obviate the multiplicity of the proceedings.

7. Shri Rathi has also submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Judge of the lower Court that both the suits are at different stages hence cannot be consolidated, is not a reason for not consolidating the two civil suits in which common issues are to be tried. It is further submitted that there is no legal restriction also, that the two suits having two different stages, cannot be consolidated.

8. A reply to the petition has also been filed by the respondent.

9. Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the suit is at its final stage of delivering judgement and the petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that the material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner / defendant and the petitioner has also obtained an order of stay from this Court on 15.6.2021, that the final judgment may not be passed by the trial Court till the next date of hearing.

10. Counsel has submitted that there is history of litigation between the parties and t