IMPORTANT POINT
Consolidation of suits under Sec. 151 of CPC is permissible for practical reasons, convenience, and to prevent conflicting judgments, expenses, and delay, while retaining the separate identity of the suits and allowing for a common judgment and decree.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent.

2. The petitioners/defendants have filed the present revision seeking to set aside the order dtd. 11/11/2022 in I.A.No.390 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.8 of 2016 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda against the petitioners/defendants seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the suit schedule property as long as he pays the lease amount to the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. H.No.19-2 part, 4th shop admeasuring 10sq.yards, Pooja Medical Hall situated at Shakuntala and Raghava Talkies complex, Church Road, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

4. 3rd petitioner/3rd defendant filed O.S.No.310 of 2021 against the respondent/plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondent/plaintiff from evicting her from shop bearing part in D.No.19-2 part (Shop No.4) in Sy.No.727 to 730 admeasuring 10sq.yards situated at Church road, Shankuntala and Raghava Talkies Complex, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District and for recovery of arrears of rent.

5. During pendency of the said suits, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.390 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 to club O.S.No.8 of 2016 with O.S.No.310 of 2021 on the following grounds:-

i. Suit schedule properties in both the suits are one and the same.

ii. Parties are also common.

iii. O.S.No.310 of 2021 is posted for defendant side evidence.

iv. If the petitioners/defendants are allowed to lead evidence, there is a chance of multiple and conflicting judgments in O.S.No.8 of 2016 in the event of which, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

6. The said Interlocutory Application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff on the following grounds:-

i. The allegations made by the petitioners are false and baseless.

ii. The reasons mentioned by the petitioners seeking to club both the suits together are untenable.

iii. The subsequent suit has to be stayed.

iv. Respondent/plaintiff shall be subjected to irreparable loss and injury in the event of clubbing of suits.

7. Vide Impugned order dtd. 11/11/2022, learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda dismissed the said application on the following grounds:-

i. The suit schedule properties and defendants are same in both the suits.

ii. Whereas, defendant No.3 is the sole plaintiff in the subsequent suit i.e. O.S.No.310 of 2021.

iii. The suit schedule property is clearly described in O.S.No.8 of 2016 but the suit schedule property in O.S.No.310 of 2021 is not clear as defendant No.3 just mentioned that Door No.19-2 is 35 sq.yards only. The defendant mentioned Door No.19-2 shop Nos.1 to 3 in one compact as suit schedule property from which it can be understood that Door No.19-2 is containing some other shops with numbers amongst which portion is the suit schedule property is not clarified by the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.310/2021.

iv. The prayer in O.S.No.310 of 2021 is for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

v. Only one defendant is present in O.S.No.310 of 2021 and other defendants in O.S.No.8 of 2016 are not parties to O.S.No.310 of 2021.

vi. Defendant No.3 did not state the clear portion in suit schedule property as disclosed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 2016 and therefore, O.S.No.310 of 2021 cannot be clubbed with O.S.No.8 of 2016.

vii. The subsequent suit be stayed till disposal of the present suit as the result of the present suit will bind on all the defendants but the result of subsequent suit shall not be binding on the defendants as only one defendant has filed O.S.No.310 of 2021 against the plaintiff.

8. Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the parties and suit schedule properties are common an