Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 13:02:57 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1103 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

Debraj Mohanty and others … Petitioners -versus-

Labani Dei … Opposite Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mukherji, Sr.Advocate For Opposite Party : Ms.D.Mahapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

8^th December, 2025 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Present CMP is directed assailing the order dated 23^rd March 2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jajpur to the extent rejecting the prayer of the defendants in C.S. No.687 of 2019 and C.S.No.745 of 2019 for analogous hearing of both the suits.

2. Head Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 13:02:57

3. Present Petitioners are defendants in both the suits i.e. C.S. No.687 of 2019 and C.S. No.745 of 2019 pending before the same Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jajpur. According to the submission of the Petitioners, the schedules of land mentioned in both the suits are adjacent though situating in different mouza. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the nature of suit as well as the parties in both the suits are same and similar and the pleadings taken by the parties in the plaint as well as written statement are almost same.

4. Conversely, Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party (Plaintiff) objects the prayer for analogous hearing of both the suits mainly on the ground that the properties are different and C.S.No.687 of 2019 has been proceeded to the stage of completion of evidence from the side of the plaintiff. On the other hand, C.S. No.745 of 2019 has been directed to be completed in a time bound manner by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMP No.550 of 2021. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to hear both the suits analogously.

5. The prayer of the defendants for analogues hearing of both the suits is definitely not harmful to the interest of the Plaintiff in both the Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 13:02:57 suits. When the parties are same and the nature of the suits are similar with almost similar pleading, it would not be inappropriate for trial of the suits analogously. It would be easier for the parties to adduce their evidence as common witnesses in both the suits and it would be also easier on the part of the parties to proceed in both the suits on the same day. It needs to be mentioned here that analogous hearing of the suit should not be confused with consolidation of suits and both the concepts are quite different. Analogous hearing of both the suits does not render the Court to give a common judgment and it is not required to frame common issues also. In a matter of analogous hearing, the Court is required to hear both the suits simultaneously on one day for convenience of the parties to adduce their evidence and taking steps. In Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel, (2013) 4 SCC 404, it is explained that, “ .. .. There is no specific provision in CPC for consolidation of suits. Such a power has to be exercised only under Section 151 CPC. The purpose of consolidation of suits is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses and the parties are relieved of the need of adducing the Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 13:02:57 same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria [(2007) 2 SCC 551].”

6. Since the properties in b