A. Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju vs R. Naga Venkata Vijayalakshmi
2022 Latest Caselaw 5667 AP

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

 CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.880, 1172 and 1217 of 2019

COMMON ORDER:

      The defendant in money suits made an effort to have all the

three suits consolidated and tried together, but the learned trial

Court declined his prayers and that resulted in filing of the present

revision petitions whereunder the revision petitioner in each of

these three revisions seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and request to rectify

the orders of the Court below.      In all the three revisions, the

revision petitioner is common and the respondent in each of these

revision petitions is different. However, the facts and law that have

come up for consideration are common in all the three revisions

and therefore, all the three revisions are disposed of by this

common order.

2. O.S.No.38 of 2017 is a suit for recovery of money based on

the foot of a promissory note of Rs.7,50,000/- filed against Sri

Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju. O.S.No.39 of 2017 is a

suit for recovery of money based on the foot of a promissory note of

Rs.12,00,000/- filed against Sri Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana

Raju. O.S.No.40 of 2017 is a suit for recovery of money based on

the foot of a promissory note of Rs.10,00,000/- filed against Sri

Alluri Sri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju.

3. All the above three suits were filed before learned Senior Civil

Judge, Razole. The defendant therein, who is common in all the

three suits, put up his appearance and filed his written statement

in each of the suits and thereafter, in each of the suits, he moved

interlocutory applications under Section 151 C.P.C. He filed

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

I.A.No.268 of 2018 in O.S.No.38 of 2017. He filed I.A.No.267 of

2018 in O.S.No.39 of 2017. He filed I.A.No.266 of 2018 in

O.S.No.40 of 2017.

4. In all the above three applications, his prayer was for

clubbing the suits and to hold a joint trial recording common

evidence. The respondent in each of these applications filed their

objections by way of a counter. Learned trial Court, after hearing

submissions on both sides and after going through the material on

record, passed separate orders in each of those interlocutory

applications and orders in I.A.Nos.266 and 268 of 2018 were

passed on 04.12.2018. Orders in I.A.No.267 of 2018 were passed

on 05.12.2018. The request of consolidation was declined by the

trial Court on the premise that the plaintiff in each of those suits is

different from one another and the consideration that passed

under each of those pronotes is different and therefore, in the

opinion of the trial Court, no case was made out to have joint or

common trial. It was with that reasoning those applications were

dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by those orders, the losing defendant has come up

with these revision petitions.

6. C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.268 of

2018. C.R.P.No.1172 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.267 of

2018. C.R.P.No.1217 of 2019 is against the order in I.A.No.266 of

2018. In all the three revision petitions, the contentions raised are

same.

7. The plaints filed in all the three suits would show that all the

three pronotes that were attributed to defendant were dated

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

30.07.2016. Each of the plaints also discloses that the defendant

in those suits is their close relative and when the borrowing took

place from one of them similar borrowings took place from the

family members of each of the plaintiffs on the same day. The

mother, her son and her daughter-in-law happened to be the

plaintiffs in each of these suits. In each of the suits, the defendant

filed written statements wherein his stand is common. It is stated

that his uncle was Sri Rudraraju Narasimha Raju and on earlier

occasions, towards family adjustments, he made remittances

amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- in favour of the defendant during the

years 2013 and 2014 and it was in that context the defendant

subscribed his signatures on pronotes leaving rest of the columns

blank and gave them to him and during subsequent periods, the

defendant repaid the amounts to his uncle, but the unfilled signed

blank pronotes were retained by his uncle as they were not traced

and subsequently, in the year 2015 his uncle died. Thereafter his

wife, son and daughter-in-law misutilizing those unfilled signed

blank pronotes have come up with these three separate suits filed

by each of them. He also stated that suit pronotes are forged and

fabricated. He further stated that each of the plaintiffs is related to

one another and scribe of all the three pronotes is same and one of

the attestors is same in all the three pronotes and one of the

plaintiffs is one of the attestors in the rest of the two pronotes. It

was with these factual context, he made out his pleadings.

8. In the context of the above pleadings on both sides, the

defendant in the suits filed the above referred interlocutory

applications invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the civil Court

under Section 151 C.P.C. with a request to consolidate the suits

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

and try them together recording common evidence so that the time

for disposal of the cases would be minimal and common trial

would obviate the need for repeating the evidence. In the counters

filed resisting those applications, the respondents, who were

plaintiffs in the suits, stated that there was no justification for

consolidating the matters and simultaneous trial of those suits

would be sufficient and they stated that consolidation of suits was

impermissible since each plaintiff has got his own independent

case and the documents on which they relied on were independent

from one another. Learned trial Court, on considering the rival

contentions, took the view that it did not find need to have

consolidated trial and therefore, dismissed the applications.

9. In the present revision petitions, after narrating the

background of all the above facts, the revision petitioner contends

that the defence in all the suits is one and the same and a common

trial would have saved lot of time of the Court since scribe and one

of the attestors is also same. It is stated that these vital aspects

were not properly considered by the trial Court and therefore, the

impugned orders shall be set aside as otherwise it would cause

grave prejudice to the revision petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for revision petitioner argued all these

aspects.

11. Learned counsel for respondents reiterating the contentions

raised before the trial Court supported the reasoning afore stated

in the impugned orders and stated that they are not the cases for

revisions and the revisions shall be dismissed.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

12. It is in the background of above facts, the point that falls for

consideration is:

"Whether non-consolidation of suits would result in

miscarriage of justice and whether the impugned orders suffer

from any fundamental infirmities so as to exercise jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?"

13. Point:

On every cause of action, the plaintiff could seek a relief as

against the defendant. The procedure to try a civil suit is provided

by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On certain occasions,

situations may develop where a suit instead of being considered

alone would need be considered along with another suit. For

instance, where subject matter of dispute is a residential premises

or an agricultural land and that is in the occupation of a tenant or

a lessee and in the event of a dispute between the landlord and

tenant, the tenant finding an aggressive landlord may seek to

protect his possession and seek a perpetual injunction against the

landlord to prevent his unlawful interference. At about some time,

the landlord having found a recalcitrant tenant not vacating the

premises despite expiry of period of lease may sue his tenant

seeking his ejectment and recovery of possession. Thus, the

dispute may have given rise to two different suits for two different

reliefs. It is in such occasion, the trial Court instead of trying both

the matters separately may hold a joint trial or consolidate trial

which means the evidence could be recorded in one of the

comprehensive suits and that evidence would cover the disputes

raised in both the suits and finally, a common judgment disposing

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

of both the suits could be made. The reason for such consolidation

is normally understood as one to avoid conflicting decisions. To

have consistency of opinion on same facts leading to uniform

decisions is one of the primary objectives that is to be achieved by

any Court of law.

14. In what other matters consolidation of trials need to take

place cannot be stated extensively. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

has not made a particular provision prescribing the parameters for

consolidation of suits. Therefore, as and when parties to the

litigation and the Court trying them find it necessary to have a

consolidated trial, the powers under Section 151 C.P.C., which

speak about the powers that are inherent with every Court, are

utilized. Broadly stated, this is how consolidation of suits takes

place. In the context of above undisputed situation, now the case

at hand has to be seen. The three separate suits filed by three

different plaintiffs are to be tried separately in the normal course.

It may be noted that all the pronotes had allegedly came into

existence on the same day and though all the plaintiffs are related

to one another so also the defendant in the suit is related to them,

those factors by themselves do not make it a case of same

transaction or series of transaction concerning each of the

plaintiffs. To put it in other words, these three plaintiffs cannot

join together and file one single suit as against the defendant.

When that being the case, the inclination of the trial Court to have

the suits tried separately cannot be found fault with. Trying each

suit separately is the normal mode that is provided for under the

law. Consolidation is an exception. Be it noted that each Court

has wide discretionary power to control the conduct of proceedings

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

before it (vide Prem Lala Nahata Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria1).

Therefore, the order of the trial Court in not consolidating the three

suits does not by itself cannot be termed as violation of any

particular law especially that of any statute.

15. However, learned counsel for revision petitioner cited a

judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Parimi Venkata Rao Vs. P.A.V.V.T. Jagapathiraju

(vide C.R.P.No.1976 of 1982). That was also a case of multiple

suits with common defendant wherein the common defence of the

defendant was about the fact that he was a small farmer and was

entitled for the benefits of Act 7 of 1977. The trial Court declined

for consolidation of the suits and aggrieved defendant moved a

revision under Section 115 C.P.C. to revise those orders. This

Court considered the facts and held that since nature of the suits

is same and the defendant is common and the main evidence of

defendant is common in all the suits it was found that it was in the

expedient interest of justice to have the joint trial. It was with that

view this Court allowed the revision on the ground that non-

consideration of such aspects by the trial Court amounted to

material irregularity.

16. A plain reading of the above ruling would certainly gave

enough support to the revision petitioner to have his prayer

ordered. However, one should keep in mind that the above ruling

was stated on 24.11.1983 and thereafter, there was change in the

law for Section 115 C.P.C./revisional jurisdiction. Act 46 of 1999

which came into force on 01.07.2002 has brought in a proviso in

(2007) 2 SCC 551 at 562

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

Section 115 C.P.C. The same is extracted hereunder for

convenience:

"Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings."

17. The above proviso would show that it is not that every order

passed by the trial Court could be revised by the High Court. The

above proviso would also show that had the order been passed by

the trial Court in favour of the revision petitioner that should have

finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In the case at

hand, refusal to consolidate the suits did not result in disposal of

the suits. Ordering consolidation of suits could not also dispose of

the suits. The orders passed are merely procedural in nature. No

harm is caused to the rights and obligations of each of the parties

in each of the suits. No prejudice is caused to anyone if the trial in

each of the suits is conducted separately. Since the above said

ruling of this Court was under Section 115 C.P.C. and subsequent

to that Code of Civil Procedure was amended, the said ruling does

not help the revision petitioner. Moreover, the present revision

petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and

that is done perhaps for the reason that the disputed orders could

not be processed under Section 115 C.P.C. by virtue of the

amendment that was effected to that provision.

18. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited the judgment in

Prem Lala Nahata's case (supra 1). That was a case where the

questions of misjoinder of causes of action and rejection of plaint

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

on that premise arose and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It was in the process of taking a decision of such aspect, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had found relevance to say certain aspects

about the consolidation of suits and at para No.18 it was stated

that 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 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 when the reliefs claimed arose out

of the same transaction or series of transactions. It is on this

principle, learned counsel for revision petitioner substantiates his

contentions. While all those principles are very important it may

be noted that they are not mandatory prescriptions for

consolidation of suits but they are merely guiding factors for the

trial Courts to consider the aspect of consolidation. This Court in

Arka Lakshmi Manohari Vs. Pillamogolla Ranga Rao2 considered

the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally stated

that all those broad principles by themselves need not necessarily

make one to take a decision for consolidation and always one has

to keep in mind whether non-consolidation of suits would result in

conflicting decisions. What is important in this ruling is that this

Court took the view that an innocuous order of the trial Court in

its disagreement to consolidate the suits by itself has not caused

any prejudice to either of the parties and all the transactions have

not come up commonly. Citing various judgments of the Hon'ble

(2015) 6 ALT 448

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

Supreme Court of India, this Court took the view in a similar

matter that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India cannot be exercised unless the impugned order is patently

perverse and is vitiated by fundamental infirmities. Viewed from

that angle, this Court does not find any fundamental infirmity in

the order of the trial Court nor the order of the trial Court could be

termed as perverse when the trial Court took the decision to try

each suit separately. The trial Court shall keep in mind that

conducting simultaneous trial of all the three suits before it would

certainly be convenient for Court as well as parties. Therefore, this

Court finds no merit in these revision petitions. The point is

answered against the revision petitioner.

19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________ DR. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 29.08.2022 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.880 of 2019 & batch

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.880, 1172 and 1217 of 2019

Date: 29.08.2022

Ivd