Jharkhand High Court
Bipin Bihari Pandey vs Krishna Ram on 15 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 358 of 2023
----
Bipin Bihari Pandey, aged about 66 years, son of Late Kedar Pandey
@ Kedar Nath Pandey, resident of Station Road, Daltonganj, PO
and PS - Daltonganj, District - Palamau .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1. Krishna Ram, son of Ram Bilas Ram
2. Ram Jabit Ram, son of Dewan Ram, both are residing at H.P. Gas
Godown, Redma, Tola - Bhimgara, PO and PS - Daltonganj,
District - Palamau
3. Shyam Bihari Pandey
4. Ras Bihari Pandey
5. Murari Pandey, all are sons of Late Kedar Pandey @ Kedar Nath
Pandey and resident of Station Road, Daltonganj, PO and PS -
Daltonganj, District - Palamau .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
:- Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate
For O.P. Nos.1 & 2 :- Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, Advocate
:- Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
----
04/15.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
2. It has been pointed out that the other opposite parties are
the proforma opposite parties.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.12.2022 passed
by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) - V, Palamau at Daltonganj
in Title Suit No.142 of 2012 whereby the petition dated 08.01.2016
filed by the petitioner for amalgamation of Title Suit No.141 of 2012
with Title Suit No.142 of 2012 has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner along with proforma opposite parties filed the Title
Suit No.142 of 2012 against the principal defendants/opposite party
Nos.1 & 2 for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs have valid
right, title and interest over the suit land and also for a decree for
removal of illegal and unauthorized construction made by the
defendant Nos.1 & 2 over the suit land through process of the
Court. He further submits that the relief sought for in Title Suit
No.141 of 2012 and further contended that the pleading and
evidence of Title Suit No.141 of 2012 are the same and both the
suits are similar, as such both may kindly be amalgamated. He
submits that the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order
and the subject matter of both the suits are similar, as such the said
order may kindly be set aside. He relied in the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills versus
Jaypee Rewa Cement reported in (2004) 3 SCC 85 wherein
paragraph No.12 it has been held as under :-
12. The two suits ought not to be tried
separately. Once the suit at Rewa has reached the
court at Visakhapatnam, the two suits shall be
consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision.
The trial court may frame consolidated issues. The
Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak
of consolidation of suits but the same can be done
under the inherent powers of the court flowing
from Section 151 CPC. Unless specifically
prohibited, the civil court has inherent power to
make such orders as may be necessary for the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process
of the court. 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 enables the two suits being
consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are
relieved of the need of adducing the same or
similar documentary and oral evidence twice over
in the two suits at two different trials. The
evidence having been recorded, common
arguments need to be addressed followed by one
common judgment. However, as the suits are two,
the court may, based on the common judgment,
draw two different decrees or one common decree
to be placed on the record of the two suits. This is
how the trial court at Visakhapatnam shall proceed
consequent upon this order of transfer of suit from
Rewa to the court at Visakhapatnam.
On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly
be set aside and both the suits may kindly be directed to be
amalgamated.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
opposite party Nos.1 & 2 submits that in Title Suit No.141 of 2012
the defendant No.1 is contesting the suit while other proforma
defendants are own relation of plaintiffs. Dhanwanti Devi claims the
land and house on the basis of sale deed executed by Amarnath
Choubey. In Title Suit No.142 of 2012, defendant Nos.1 & 2 Krishna
Ram and Ramjabit Ram are contesting defendants, they claim the
land on separate sale deed executed by Amarnath Choubey and
Pramod Choubey respectively. He submits that in these suits
proforma defendants are own relative of the plaintiffs and in
another case the defendants are different. He further submits that
the cause of action of both the suits are different. He further
submits that in Title Suit No.141 of 2012 six of the plaintiff witness
has already been examined and certain documents have also been
executed. He submits that the pleadings are also different. On this
ground, he submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the
said order.
6. The learned Court has passed the order considering that the
cause of action in both the suits are different and in Title Suit
No.141 of 2012 six witnesses and documents have already been
examined and exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff. In the case of
Chitivalasa Jute Mills versus Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra)
relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it has been
held that consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of
justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay
and expenses. However, what has been discussed here-in-above it
transpires that the defendants in both the suits are different, the
cause of action is also not similar and pleadings are also said to be
different, as such the learned Court has rightly passed the said
order. This petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
