1. Petitioner sought transfer and consolidation of suits concerning the same subject property and common parties pending before different courts having equivalent jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 1035
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Mr. V.Surya Prakash Rao - Petitioner
Vs.
M/s KIGO Pharma Pvt.Ltd, Hyderabad and another - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.1364 Of 2026
Decided On : 09-07-2026
Important Points
Courts may exercise discretionary power under Section 24 and inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to transfer and consolidate suits involving the same property and common issues to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments, regardless of whether all parties are common to all suits.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 24, 10 and 151 - Transfer and consolidation of suits - Application to transfer suits pending before a Junior Civil Judge to a District Judge for joint trial - Subject property is identical and issues are common - Refusal by lower court on the ground that the applicant is not a party to one of the suits - Erroneous - Transfer permissible to avoid conflicting judgments and multiplicity of proceedings (Paras 11, 19, 27).
(B) Section 24 CPC - Scope of discretionary power - Order of transfer must reflect the application of mind and the circumstances that weighed in taking the action - Power must be exercised with due care, caution, and circumspection (Paras 12-15).
(C) Consolidation of Suits - Not specifically provided for in the CPC but permissible under the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC - Consolidation is ordered for meeting the ends of justice, saving parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay, and expenses, especially where there is substantial similarity of issues (Paras 16-17).
(D) Section 10 CPC - Object of stay of suit - Intended to avoid parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to prevent concurrent decisions that may result in conflicting findings on issues which are directly or substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit (Paras 18-19).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against two respondents. One of the respondents filed a suit for eviction against the other respondent, and the second respondent had previously filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and the first respondent. All three suits involved the same suit schedule property. The petitioner sought to transfer two of these suits from a Junior Civil Judge's court to a District Judge's court, where the third suit was pending, for a joint trial. The lower court dismissed the transfer petition solely on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the suit pending before the District Judge.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the suit schedule properties in all three suits are one and the same and the issues involved are substantially identical. The fact that the petitioner was not a party to one of the suits does not preclude the transfer and consolidation of the proceedings when the lis is the same. The court observed that the lower court failed to consider that consolidation prevents contradictory findings and saves judicial time.
Issues: Whether suits involving the same subject property and common issues should be transferred and consolidated for trial even if one of the parties is not a party to all the suits.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 24 of the CPC, the court possesses discretionary power to transfer suits to ensure the ends of justice. When the property and the lis are the same, suits can be consolidated using the inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments, regardless of whether a party is absent from one of the suits.
Result: Revision allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the suits are transferred to the court of the II Additional District Judge for consolidation, trial, and decision.
(B) Section 24 CPC - Scope of discretionary power - Order of transfer must reflect the application of mind and the circumstances that weighed in taking the action - Power must be exercised with due care, caution, and circumspection (Paras 12-15).
(C) Consolidation of Suits - Not specifically provided for in the CPC but permissible under the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC - Consolidation is ordered for meeting the ends of justice, saving parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay, and expenses, especially where there is substantial similarity of issues (Paras 16-17).
(D) Section 10 CPC - Object of stay of suit - Intended to avoid parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to prevent concurrent decisions that may result in conflicting findings on issues which are directly or substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit (Paras 18-19).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against two respondents. One of the respondents filed a suit for eviction against the other respondent, and the second respondent had previously filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and the first respondent. All three suits involved the same suit schedule property. The petitioner sought to transfer two of these suits from a Junior Civil Judge's court to a District Judge's court, where the third suit was pending, for a joint trial. The lower court dismissed the transfer petition solely on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the suit pending before the District Judge.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the suit schedule properties in all three suits are one and the same and the issues involved are substantially identical. The fact that the petitioner was not a party to one of the suits does not preclude the transfer and consolidation of the proceedings when the lis is the same. The court observed that the lower court failed to consider that consolidation prevents contradictory findings and saves judicial time.
Issues: Whether suits involving the same subject property and common issues should be transferred and consolidated for trial even if one of the parties is not a party to all the suits.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 24 of the CPC, the court possesses discretionary power to transfer suits to ensure the ends of justice. When the property and the lis are the same, suits can be consolidated using the inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments, regardless of whether a party is absent from one of the suits.
Result: Revision allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the suits are transferred to the court of the II Additional District Judge for consolidation, trial, and decision.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The respondent contended that suits pending before different jurisdictional tiers could not be consolidated or transferred, nor could the petitioner seek transfer if not a party to the suit. (Para 6 , 28 )
3. Consolidation of suits aimed at preventing multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings is permissible under inherent powers when issues and subject matter are substantially identical. (Para 17 , 27 , 29 )
4. Courts possess inherent power under Section 151, CPC, to consolidate suits sharing common issues and subject matter to secure ends of justice and avoid conflicting judicial findings. (Para 17 , 19 )
5. The revision petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and the trial court is directed to consolidate the suits for joint trial and decision. (Para 30 )
6. Can suits pending before courts of different pecuniary or jurisdictional tiers be consolidated under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Yes, Section 24 allows the High Court or District Court to transfer and consolidate suits involving identical or substantially similar issues and parties to ensure justice and prevent conflicting judgments, provided the court receiving the suits is competent to try them. (Para 11 , 16 , 17 , 27 )
7. Is formal consolidation of suits authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure despite the absence of a specific provision?
While the Code does not explicitly provide for consolidation, courts exercise inherent powers under Section 151, CPC, to consolidate suits to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, save expenses, and avoid conflicting findings on common issues of fact or law. (Para 17 , 29 )
8. Does the inability to file a first appeal to a District Court due to a transfer order bar the consolidation of suits?
No, concerns regarding the loss of a specific appellate forum do not override the necessity of consolidation. Parties retain their statutory right to file a first appeal before the appropriate jurisdictional court upon the final disposal of the consolidated suits. (Para 28 )
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Sri A. Venkaesh, learned senior counsel representing Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Annamraju Rajanarsimha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Shalini Donthi, learned counsel representing Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 13.04.2026 in Tr.O.P.No.4 of 2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Jude, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.
3. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda, dismissed the said Tr.O.P.No.4 of 2025 filed by the petitioner to transfer the suits in O.S.No.119 of 2020 and O.S.No.38 of 2020 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri at Medchal to II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, where the suit in O.S.No.151 of 2022 (old O.S.No.51 of 2020) is pending and try all the suits together.
4. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.119 of 2020 on 02.06.2020 before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri at Medchal, against the respondents for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. 1st respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.151 of 2022 (old O.S.No.51 of 2020) on 08.06.2020 before the II Additional District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal, against 2nd respondent for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages in June, 2020. Likewise, 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.38 of 2020 on 29.01.2020 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal against the petitioner and 1st respondent for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the 2nd respondent over the suit schedule property.
5. During pendency of the said suits, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to transfer the suits in O.S.No.119 of 2020 and O.S.No.38 of 2020 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, to the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal where O.S.No.151 of 2022(old O.S.No.51 of 2020) is pending and try the same together contending that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property. 1st respondent is a tenant and 2nd respondent is claiming that it is a sub- tenant of 1st respondent. The suit schedule property is one and the same, parties are almost common and therefore, to avoid conflicting judgments/findings of the trial Courts, transferring the aforesaid two suits pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Medchal to II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal and try the same together.
6. 1st respondent did not oppose the said application. 2nd respondent opposed the said application contending that it is not a party to the aforesaid two suits pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal. Therefore, the said suits cannot be transferred and tried along with O.S.No.151 of 2022 (old O.S.No.51 of 2021) pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal.
7. Vide impugned order, learned Principal District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, dismissed the said application holding that there shall be no transfer and clubbing of the said suits as the petitioner is not a party to O.S.No.151 of 2022 (old O.S.No.51 of 2020). The petitioner has no locus standi whatsoever to seek transfer of the suits. The relief sought by the petitioner to transfer the aforesaid two suits for trial along with O.S.No.151 of 2022 (old O.S.No.51 of 2020) is without any proper cause. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.
8. This Court heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent extensively.
