JUDGMENT

The order directing the joint trial of three suits by the trial court is under challenge at the instance of the plaintiff in one of the suits, who is the defendant in another suit. The petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.30/2020 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Koyilandy. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner instituted O.S.No.143 of 2017 seeking an order of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property therein against respondent No.1. The petitioner claims that himself, his wife and children have right over the plaint schedule property. They traced their title through registered deed Nos.89/1991 and 2791/1985. Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.30/2020 filed another suit as O.S.No.147/2017 against respondent No.1. He also seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No.1. It was when O.S.No.143/2017 was ripe for trial respondent No.1 instituted O.S.No.30/2020 to declare that he is the owner of the property to which the properties scheduled in O.S.Nos.143 and 147 of 2017 form part. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed I.A.No.13/2021 in O.S.No.30/2020 seeking joint trial of the said case along with O.S.Nos.143 and 147 of 2017. The trial Court allowed joint trial, holding that some issues and evidence to be let in are common. The court also held that separate trials may lead to duplication of evidence.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the joint trial of O.S.Nos.143 and 147 of 2017 along with O.S.No.30/2020 will cause prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that since O.S.No.143 of 2017 is a suit for injunction simpliciter wherein the possession of the property by the parties alone is the subject matter to be decided, there is no need to consolidate this case with O.S.No.30/2020 wherein respondent No.1 seeks declaration of title over a larger extent of property.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that consolidation of the suits would meet the ends of justice.

5. The plaint property in O.S.No.30/20 is 5 acres and 32 cents of land in old Survey Nos.58/9, 41/1,4,5,6 in Unnikkulam Village in Thamarassery Taluk. The plaint schedule properties in O.S.Nos.143 & 147 of 2017 also form part of the plaint property in O.S.No.30/2020. The plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.143 and 147 of 2017 are the defendants in O.S.No.30/2020.

6. 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. In Chitivalasa 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 sufficient 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.

7. 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