1. Petitioner sought transfer and consolidation of suits concerning identical premises and overlapping parties, which the trial court dismissed due to the petitioner not being a party in one suit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 1067
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
Consolidation of suits under Section 151 and transfer under Section 24 of the CPC is permissible to ensure justice and avoid conflicting judgments when suits involve the same subject property and substantially common issues and parties, even if one party is not a party to all suits.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure/Transfer of Suits
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24 - Transfer of suits - Discretionary power of the Court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding to ensure justice - Power to be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and must reflect application of mind - Rules of procedure are intended to provide justice and not defeat it; substantive rights of a party should not be taken away by procedural interpretations (Paras 11-15).
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Inherent powers - Consolidation of suits - Although the Code does not specifically provide for consolidation, it is permissible under inherent powers to serve the ends of justice, save parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay, and expenses, and prevent conflicting judgments when there is substantial similarity in issues and parties (Paras 16-17).
(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 10 - Stay of suit - Aimed at avoiding two parallel trials on the same issue by two different courts and preventing concurrent decisions and conflicting findings on issues that are directly or substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit (Paras 18-19).
Facts of the case:
Three suits were filed relating to the same suit schedule property. One suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction and recovery of rent against both respondents. Another suit was filed by the second respondent for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and first respondent. A third suit was filed by the first respondent for eviction and recovery of rent against the second respondent. The petitioner sought to transfer two of these suits from a junior civil court to a district court where the third suit was pending to have them tried together via consolidation. The trial court dismissed the transfer application on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the third suit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subject property in all three suits is identical, the parties are almost common, and the core issue regarding ownership and tenancy is the same. The trial court failed to consider these aspects and erred in dismissing the application solely because the petitioner was not a party to one of the suits.
Issues: Whether suits relating to the same property and substantially common issues should be transferred and consolidated to avoid conflicting findings, regardless of whether every party is common to every suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer and consolidation of suits are permissible under Sections 24 and 151 of the CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. When the subject matter is identical and the issues are substantially the same, judicial discretion should be exercised to consolidate the trials for the ends of justice.
Result: Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.04.2026 in Tr.OP No.4 of 2025 is set aside. The Tr.O.P. No.4 of 2025 is allowed. Suits in O.S.No.38 of 2020 and 119 of 2020 are transferred to the court of the district judge to be tried along with O.S.No.151 of 2022.
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Inherent powers - Consolidation of suits - Although the Code does not specifically provide for consolidation, it is permissible under inherent powers to serve the ends of justice, save parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay, and expenses, and prevent conflicting judgments when there is substantial similarity in issues and parties (Paras 16-17).
(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 10 - Stay of suit - Aimed at avoiding two parallel trials on the same issue by two different courts and preventing concurrent decisions and conflicting findings on issues that are directly or substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit (Paras 18-19).
Facts of the case:
Three suits were filed relating to the same suit schedule property. One suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction and recovery of rent against both respondents. Another suit was filed by the second respondent for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and first respondent. A third suit was filed by the first respondent for eviction and recovery of rent against the second respondent. The petitioner sought to transfer two of these suits from a junior civil court to a district court where the third suit was pending to have them tried together via consolidation. The trial court dismissed the transfer application on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the third suit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subject property in all three suits is identical, the parties are almost common, and the core issue regarding ownership and tenancy is the same. The trial court failed to consider these aspects and erred in dismissing the application solely because the petitioner was not a party to one of the suits.
Issues: Whether suits relating to the same property and substantially common issues should be transferred and consolidated to avoid conflicting findings, regardless of whether every party is common to every suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer and consolidation of suits are permissible under Sections 24 and 151 of the CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. When the subject matter is identical and the issues are substantially the same, judicial discretion should be exercised to consolidate the trials for the ends of justice.
Result: Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.04.2026 in Tr.OP No.4 of 2025 is set aside. The Tr.O.P. No.4 of 2025 is allowed. Suits in O.S.No.38 of 2020 and 119 of 2020 are transferred to the court of the district judge to be tried along with O.S.No.151 of 2022.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought consolidation citing avoidence of conflicting findings and multiplicity, while respondents opposed transfer, citing the lack of commonality of parties across all suits. (Para 5 , 6 , 27 )
3. The court found that the lis in all suits involved the same property and related parties, making consolidation necessary to prevent conflicting findings and multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 22 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Courts possess inherent power under Section 151 CPC to consolidate suits with similar issues to prevent abuse of process and ensure administrative justice, regardless of partial identity of parties. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 )
5. The revision petition is allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the trial court is directed to consolidate the suits for common trial and decision. (Para 30 )
6. Can suits be consolidated if the parties are not identical in all matters?
Yes. When the lis involves the same property and substantially similar issues, the court may exercise inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to consolidate suits to prevent conflicting findings, multiplicity of proceedings, and unnecessary delay, even if the parties are not completely identical. (Para 17 , 27 , 29 )
7. What is the scope of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding transfer of suits?
Section 24 confers discretionary, procedural power upon a court to transfer suits for trial. While not explicitly defining grounds for transfer, it must be exercised with judicial discretion to ensure justice and prevent the abuse of the process of court. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 )
8. Does consolidation of suits for joint trial require explicit statutory provision?
No. While the CPC does not provide a specific section for consolidation, courts derive the power to consolidate suits from Section 151 CPC, provided there is substantial similarity in the issues for decision in the respective suits. (Para 17 )
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.
