# Avadhaesh Kumar & Ors v. Ghanshyam Mishra - **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 918 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-08-23 - **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 3881 of 2024 - **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/avadhaesh-kumar-ors-v-ghanshyam-mishra-52489 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order IV-A Rule 1-Impugned order - consolidated three civil suits under Order IV-A Rule 1 of the CPC - suits involved the same family property and parties - all the three suits relate to the same set of properties belonging to one family-all the parties belong to one familytitle derived from common predecessors -parties to the suits are substantially the samesubstantial similarity in issues also-When all the suits will be consolidated and decided together- it will be open for the parties to lead evidence in support of the issues involved in all the suits-will save the precious judicial time of the court - no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners by consolidation of the suits. W.P dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: ## Text 918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ---------- (2024) 8 ILRA 918 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 23.08.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Matters U/A 227 No. 3881 of 2024 Avadhaesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Ghanshyam Mishra ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Rama Niwas Pathak Counsel for the Respondent: Narayan Dutt Mishra Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order IV-A Rule 1-Impugned order - consolidated three civil suits under Order IV-A Rule 1 of the CPC - suits involved the same family property and parties - all the three suits relate to the same set of properties belonging to one family-all the parties belong to one familytitle derived from common predecessors -parties to the suits are substantially the samesubstantial similarity in issues also-When all the suits will be consolidated and decided together- it will be open for the parties to lead evidence in support of the issues involved in all the suits-will save the precious judicial time of the court - no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners by consolidation of the suits. W.P dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. Ramanand Vs Civil Judge (S.D.), Merta (Raj.) Citation: AIR 2017 (NOC) 668 (Raj.) 2. M/s Anurag and Co. & anr. Vs Add. District Judge & ors. AIR 2006 Rajasthan 119 2006 SCC OnLine (Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Rama Niwas Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged validity of an order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Faizabad in Original Suit No. 373/2001, whereby the trial court has allowed the application filed by the opposite parties for consolidation of Original Suits No. 21/2011 and 811/2014 with Original Suit No. 373/2001. The petitioners have also challenged validity of judgment and order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Faizabad in Civil Revision No. 08/2023, whereby the revision filed against the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Civil Judge has been dismissed. 3. The opposite parties filed an application under Order IV-A C.P.C. for consolidation of the aforesaid three suits stating that all the suits are between the same set of parties regarding the same property in dispute and all the three suits can be consolidated and decided together. The petitioners filed objections against the application stating that Suit No. 373/2001 has been filed for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, Suit No. 21/2011 has been filed for cancellation of sale deed and Suit No. 811/2014 has been filed for cancellation of will and the subject matters and causes of action of all the three suits are different. 8 All. Avadhaesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ghanshyam Mishra 919 4. The learned Civil Judge had allowed the application for consolidation of all the three suits by the impugned order dated 20.01.2023 by recording that all the three suits relate to the properties of the same family. During pendency of Suit No. 373/2001, some portion of the property in dispute was transferred to some other members of the family, due to which the subsequent suits have been filed. The subject matters of all the three suits are interlinked and all the suits can be decided together, which will save the judicial time of the Court. 5. Accordingly, the trial court allowed the application for consolidation of the suits. The petitioners filed a revision against the order of consolidation of suits passed by the civil court which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 on the ground that all the three suits relate to the properties of the same family and they can be consolidated and decided together and that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court in consolidation of the suits. 6. While assailing validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the parties to the suits, cause of action for filing the suits and prayer sought are different, the suits cannot be consolidated. He has placed reliance on two judgments referred by the Rajasthan High Court in Ramanand v. Civil Judge (S.D.), Merta (Raj.): AIR 2017 (NOC) 668 (RAJ.) and M/s Anurag and Co. & Anr. v. Add. District Judge & Ors.: AIR 2006 Rajastahan 119 = 2006 SCC OnLine Raj 4. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although some of the parties to the suits are different, all the parties claim to have derived title from the common predecessors in interest. All of them belong to the same family and all the suits have been filed regarding properties belonging to one family. Although the prayers made in the three suits are different, all the suits relate to the same set of properties and, therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in consolidating the suits. 8. Order IV-A has been inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure by way of a State amendment made in the State of U.P.. This Order contains only one Rule, which is as follows: - "R. 1. Consolidation of suits and proceedings.--When two or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same Court, and the Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may by order direct their joint trial, whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits or proceedings." 9. The aforesaid Rule merely provides that two or more suits or proceedings pending in the same Court can be consolidated if the Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice. If the suits are consolidated and tried jointly, the suits may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits. Order IV-A Rule 1 C.P.C. does not require that the suits can be consolidated only if the cause of action and the reliefs sought in all the suits is the same. Where the Court comes to the conclusion that plural suits are pending before it which are between the members of the same family deriving title from common predecessors in interest and the issues involved in the suits are interlinked, the Court can certainly order consolidation 920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES of the suits as it will save the time of the Court, avoid a possibility of conflicting decisions in the suit and thereby serve the interests of justice. 10. The aforesaid Rule is not applicable in the State of Rajasthan and it was not in consideration in the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, in Anurag (Supra), the Rajasthan High Court formulated the following general principles for consolidation of suits even in absence of a specific statutory provision in this regard:- "28. The upshot of aforesaid discussion of judgment is that some of the relevant circumstances for consolidating the civil suits are as follows:- (i) The parties are substantially the same. (ii) Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits. (iii) Common evidence is to be led, if parties are substantially the same, if only one party is common then burden of proof of facts in issue will be on different person and no common evidence can be led. (iv) The consolidation in the aforesaid circumstances will fulfill the object of consolidation. Any other circumstances may be relevant then also the object of consolidation will be decisive for passing appropriate order." 11. In Ramanand (Supra), the Rajasthan High Court has decided the case on the basis of peculiar facts of the case and it had noted that 'it is succinct position of law that precedential verdicts are to be followed where the facts of the case are almost identical in nature or the question of law involved is identical'. In the case decided by the Rajasthan High Court, the trial court had rejected the application for consolidation of suits and the High Court also found that the parties to the suits and the documents forming basis of claims of the parties to the suit, were not the same and there was no possibility of conflicting judgments in separate suits. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts the Rajasthan High Court did not find any illegality in the order declining to consolidate the suits. 12. In the present case, all the three suits relate to the same set of properties belonging to one family. All the parties belong to one family and they claim to have derived title from common predecessors in interest. Therefore, the parties to the suits are substantially the same. There is substantial similarity in issues also. When all the suits will be consolidated and decided together, it will be open for the parties to lead evidence accordingly in support of the issues involved in all the suits, which will obviously save the precious judicial time of the court and prevent wastage of resources of the parties also. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners by consolidation of the suits. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the consolidation of all the three suits will be expedient in the interests of justice and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Faizabad has rightly ordered consolidation of the three suits. There is no illegality or error in the impugned order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Faizabad in Original Suit No. 373/2021 and the judgment and order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 8 All. Anupam Sahkari Awas Samiti, Lko. Thru. Authorized Azadar Mirza Vs. A.D.J., Lko. & Ors. 921 Court No. 8, Faizabad in Civil Revision No. 08/2023, warranting interference from this Court. 14. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. ---------- (2024) 8 ILRA 921 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.08.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Matters U/A 227 No.4067 of 2024 Anupam Sahkari Awas Samiti, Lko. Thru. Authorized Azadar Mirza ...Petitioner Versus A.D.J., Lko. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Syed Asaghar Mehdi Counsel for the Respondents: Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC - impugned order allowed Application file by the opposite party to be impleaded as an opposite party in the suit in question- opposite party claims that disputed party is his ancestral property and plaintiff claims it as his purchased property-opposite party is a necessary party-necessary and proper parties must be included in a case for fair adjudication. Impugned order legal. W.P dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. Gurmit Singh Bhatiya Vs kiran kant Robbins (2020) 13 SCC 773 2. Kasturi v. Uyyamperumal & Ors. 3. Kanaklata das and ors Vs Naba Kumar Das & ors., 2 SCC 352 4. Mohd. Hussain Gulam Ali Sharifi Vs municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors., (2020) 14 SCC 392 5. Bombay International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Case Vs Regency Convention Center & hotels & ors., (2010) 7 SCC 417 SCC (Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) 1. याचिकाकताग्‌ के्‌ विदिान्‌ अचधिक्ता्‌ श्री्‌ सैय्यद्‌ असर्र्‌ मेहंदी्‌ को्‌ सुना्‌ तर्था्‌ पिािली्‌ का्‌ अिलोकन्‌ ककया। 2. भारतीय्‌ संविधान्‌ के्‌ अनुछछेद्‌ 227्‌ के्‌ अंतर्गत्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ इस्‌ याचिका्‌ दिारा्‌ याचिकाकताग्‌ ने्‌ मूल्‌ िाद्‌ संख्या्‌ 366्‌ सन्‌ 2019्‌ में्‌ अपर्‌ भसविल्‌ जज्‌ (अिर्‌ खडि), कक्ष्‌ संख्या्‌ 47, लखनऊ्‌ दिारा्‌ पाररत्‌ आदेश्‌ ददनांककत्‌ 10.10.2022्‌ की्‌ िैधता्‌ को्‌ िुनौती्‌ दी्‌ है, ण्जसके्‌ दिारा्‌ विपक्षी्‌ संख्या्‌ 3्‌ दिारा्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ प्रार्थगना-पि्‌ अंतर्गत्‌ आदेश्‌ 1्‌ ननयम्‌ 10्‌ सपदठत्‌ धारा्‌ 151्‌ दीिानी्‌ प्रकक्रया्‌ संदहता्‌ का्‌ प्रार्थगना्‌ -्‌ पि्‌ स्िीकार्‌ करते्‌ हुए्‌ िादी्‌ को्‌ ननदेभशत्‌ ककया्‌ र्या्‌ कक्‌ शाने्‌ आलम्‌ को्‌ प्रनतिादी्‌ के्‌ रूप्‌ में्‌ पक्षकार्‌ बनाया्‌ जाय।्‌ याचिकाकताग्‌ ने्‌ उपरोक्त्‌ आदेश्‌ के्‌ विरुदध्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ दीिानी्‌ पुनरीक्षर््‌ संख्या्‌ 62्‌ सन्‌ 2023्‌ में्‌ विदिान्‌ अपर्‌ जनपद्‌ तर्था्‌ सि्‌ न्यायाधीश, कक्ष्‌ संख्या्‌ 7, लखनऊ्‌ दिारा्‌ पाररत्‌ ननर्गय्‌ तर्था्‌ आदेश्‌ ददनांक्‌ 19.02.2014्‌ की्‌ िैधता्‌ को्‌ भी्‌ िुनौती्‌ दी्‌ है, ण्जसके्‌ दिारा्‌ उपरोक्त्‌ आदेश्‌ ददनांक्‌ 10.10.2022्‌ पुष्ट्‌ कर्‌ ददया्‌ र्या्‌ तर्था्‌ पुनरीक्षर््‌ ननरस्त्‌ कर्‌ ददया्‌ र्या।