Consolidation of suits under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandated solely by commonality of subject property. When two suits involve distinct legal causes—such as landlord-tenant disputes versus specific performance—that require separate evidence and inquiry, trial consolidation should be denied to prevent procedural delay.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for short, ‘CPC’) seeks the following prayers: -

“A. Direct that the Suit bearing CS No. 523 of 2022 titled “Rahul Chaudhary v. Mukesh Khurana” be transferred from the court of the Ld. Additional District Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Original Side of this Hon’ble Court; and

B. Any other order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”

2. By way of the present petition, petitioner seeks transfer of the subject suit, CS No.523 of 2022, titled as, “Rahul Chaudhary v. Mukesh Khurana” instituted and pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that subject suit was instituted on behalf of the respondent against the petitioner, inter alia, seeking possession of the suit property, i.e., Side Portion of Farm No.10, Ram Mandir Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, and recovery of arrears of rent, damages/mesne profits along with interest.

3. As per the averments made in the present petition, the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, ‘A&C Act’) seeking reference of the subject suit to arbitration, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.04.2024. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of FAO No. 200/2024 under Section 37 of the A&C Act before this Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2024. The said order was further challenged by way of SLP No.23980/2024, which was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.02.2025.

4. Petitioner filed a counter-claim being Counter-Claim No.44/2023 in the subject suit for declaration of the oral agreement of collaboration between the petitioner-counter claimant and respondent-defendant (in subject suit) for redevelopment of “Khurana Farm No.10” situated at the Side Portion of Farm No.10, Ram Mandir Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, (suit property) as also for specific performance thereof, and alternatively, for damages. Alongwith the aforesaid counter-claim filed by the petitioner herein, an application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking return of the plaint to the respondent to be presented before this Court was also filed as the combined pecuniary jurisdiction of the subject suit and the counter-claim exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the latter’s counter-claim was delayed as no notice/summons had been issued by the learned Trial Court although it was filed on 11.12.2023, and on account of the same, the petitioner preferred an application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC before the learned Trial Court on 10.03.2025 seeking return/withdrawal of the counter-claim filed on his behalf with liberty to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.03.2025.

6. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner instituted suit, CS(OS) No. 208/2025, before Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court on 01.04.2025 on the same sets of facts and cause of ac