The court supports consolidation of suits to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, emphasizing interests of justice and efficiency.

JUDGMENT

The Challenge in this Original Petition is to Ext.P5 order dated 29.01.2022 in I.A.No.01/2021 in O.S.No.1552/2014, refusing the consolidation of two suits.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.1552/2014 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, against the petitioners/defendants, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. The petitioners/defendants resisted the suit, contending that they are entitled to right over a pathway through the plaint schedule property.

4. The petitioners/defendants filed O.S.No.1403/2020 seeking a declaration of their right of easement by grant over the pathway in dispute. They applied for consolidation of both the suits. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the matters in issue in both the cases are different, though the parties and properties are the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute centers around the pathway. Therefore, the finding of the learned Munsiff that the matters in issue are different cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the attempt of the petitioners is to get the matter prolonged. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents instituted the suit as early as in 2014, whereas the petitioners instituted the second suit in 2020, after six years.

6. I have gone through the essential pleadings for the adjudication of the dispute. The parties and properties are the same. The claim of easement by the petitioners/defendants is the crux of the dispute in both the suits. Therefore, I am unable to accept the finding of the learned Munsiff that the matters in issue are entirely different in both the suits.

7. The Civil Procedure Code does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits or other proceedings. Equity, justice, convenience and necessity govern the question of whether the joint trial of suits or other proceedings is required or not. The principle of prejudice may also be taken into account when the court orders a joint trial. InChitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement ( AIR 2004 SC 1687 ) the Supreme Court observed that consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufÏcient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits or proceedings enables the two suits to be consolidated for trial and decision. This may relieve the parties of the need to adduce the same or similar oral or documentary evidence more than once in the two suits at two different trials.

8. In Prem Lala Nahata and Another v.

Chandi Prasad Sikaria ( AIR 2007 SC 1247 ), on the purpose of consolidation of two suits or proceedings, the Supreme Court held thus: -

".............. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are, by order of the court, combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions................"

9. In Mahalaxmi Co - operative Housin