1. Short facts involved in the petition are that one Jitendra Kumar Sharma instituted a suit in the capacity of power of attorney holder for recovery of Rs. 1,43,256/- from the defendants/respondents. There was a petrol pump which was being managed by Jitendra Kumar Sharma under a power of attorney. However, he did not mention in the plaint about the principal who authorised him by executing power of attorney. The recovery was towards the price of petrol and diesel issued against the orders given from 1.5.2000 to 31.10.2003. This suit was initially registered as Civil Suit No. 6-B/2004 and has been presently registered as Civil Suit No. 2B/2005 pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, presided over by Shri P.K. Shrivastava. During pendency of the suit Smt. Karuna Pandey (respondent No. 1 herein), submitted an application that she was the principal and had authorised Jitendra Kumar Sharma to run the petrol pump. Her application for substitution in place of Jitendra Kumar Sharma was allowed and consequently respondent No.1 was substituted as plaintiff in place of Jitendra Kumar Sharma in Civil Suit No. 2-B/05. Thereafter, the present petitioner, namely, Smt. Tara Sharma, submitted an application that she and respondent No.1 had jointly appointed Jitendra Kumar Sharma as power of attorney to run the petrol pump. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 4.7.2006 on the ground that the disputed fact that whether Smt. Tara Sharma was partner in the petrol pump business or not, cannot be gone into in the suit for recovery. This order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 9796/06. The petition was dismissed on 30.8.2006 with an observation that no one can be joined in a suit as co-plaintiff without the consent of the existing plaintiff. However, it was further observed that the petitioner may bring a separate suit.

2. Thereafter, the present petitioner has instituted a suit for recovery of the same amount against the defendants/respondents No.2 to 4 which was registered as civil suit initially in the Court of District Judge Panna, which has been transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge Panna, presided over by the same Judge, namely, Shri P.K. Shrivastava and has been registered as Civil Suit No. 1-B/2006. In this suit, summons have been issued to the defendants.

3. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that Civil Suit No. I-B/ 06 and Civil Suit No. 2-B/05 be decided analogously. This application was opposed and has been dismissed by the impugned order marked as Annexure P-5 on the ground that the earlier suit is at the stage of final arguments whereas, Civil Suit No.1-B/06 is at the stage of summoning of the defendants.

4. Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the suits are for recovery of the same amount arising from the same bills issued, by common petrol pump. He has placed on record copy of the power of attorney (Annexure P-2) which prima facie goes to show that Jitendra Kumar Sharma was appointed by the petitioner as well as by respondent No.1 by a common deed of power of attorney. Accordingly, it has been contended that the defendants may be made liable to pay the amount either to the petitioner or to the respondent No.1. Therefore, the suits cannot be decided separately.

5. Shri J.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 countered the submissions of the petitioner on the ground that Civil Suit No. 2-B/05 has already traversed substantially and is at the stage of final arguments. In view of this, it has been contended that the proceedings of earlier suit cannot be held up by the subsequent suit which is extremely at a preliminary stage. He also disputed the power of attorney contained in Annexure P-2 as forged one.

6. I have heard the submissions of both the learned counsel and perused the record.

7. At this stage, it cannot