Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

Sanjay Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner

-versus-

Haripriya Pattnaik and others …. Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. G.R. Mishra, Advocate

For O.P. Nos.1 to 12

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

19^th September 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Pattanaik, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and

Mr. G.R. Mishra, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 1 to 12.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar passed in C.S. No.1780

of 2018.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that, he is the Defendant in C.S. No.1780 of 2018, which is filed by present Opposite Parties praying

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12 for eviction of the Defendant and realization of arrear rent amount. Subsequently, the present Petitioner, who is the Defendant in the earlier suit, filed C.S. No.10 of 2019 praying for specific performance of contract in respect of the same suit property involved in C.S.

No.1780 of 2018.

4. According to Mr. S. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, both the suits are pending before the same court, i.e. learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar and the properties involved in both the suits are same. Since both the suits are proceeding independently, the present Petitioner filed a petition dated 02.12.2024 for analogous hearing of both the suits. But the same was rejected by the learned trial court vide his order dated 27.2.2025 under Annexure-6. It is submitted by Mr. Pattanaik that since both the suits involving same property and between same parties are pending before the same court, it is desirable to hear both the suits analogously to avoid any kind of adverse order.

5. Conversely Mr. G.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 to 12 submits that, the suit filed by them, i.e. C.S. No.1780 of 2018 is ready for argument after both the parties have adduced their evidence whereas the other suit, i.e. C.S. No.10 of 2019, it is only Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12 awaiting commencement of hearing after framing of issues. According to Mr. Mishra, the attempt made by the present Petitioner, who is Defendant in C.S. No.1780 of 2018, is only to linger the suit filed by the present Opposite Parties with a prayer for eviction of the present Petitioner.

6. It is true that, the Civil Procedure Code does not prescribe any guideline for analogous hearing of two or more suits though the court in exercise of his power under Section 151, C.P.C. can direct for analogous hearing of two or more suits if found necessary to avoid multiplicity in orders or conflict in adjudication of the issues concerned.

7. In S.C. Jain v. Bindeshwari Devi, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 417 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have explained as follows:-

“ 21. Three neighbouring concepts, often confused with each other, may be made precise. They are (i) a direction for analogous or simultaneous hearing of the suits; (ii) consolidation of suits in their entirety and (iii) consolidation of suits for the purpose of trial.

21.1 A direction for analogous or simultaneous hearing of the suits requires the court to take up the two suits for hearing on the same date. The identity of the suits remains distinct and Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12 independent from each other. It is not merged either wholly or even partially. The hearing takes place separately in each suit though on the same date. Such are the cases where on account of similar or same question of law arising for decision in different suits or the same material witness being required to be examined in different suits, for the sake of convenience the court directs the suits to be t