SOHAN LAL Vs. SURAJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against the order of trial Court consolidating two suits titled as Sohan Lal v. Suraj Bhan and Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal. While issuing notice this Court took into consideration that the parties were different and that a part of the property only is the same in both the suits. This Court also took into consideration that in one case evidence has been concluded whereas in the other case evidence is yet to be concluded. Upon appearance having been put in by the counsel for the respondents, the factual position as noticed in the admitting order of this Court dated 24.11.1989 is not disputed. However, the learned counsel has argued that the order of consolidation is correct because decision in the suit titled as Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal would have a direct bearing upon decision in Sohan Lal v. Suraj Bhan and vice versa. After perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, it has become clear that in the suit titled as Sohan Lal v. Suraj Bhan, the land involved is 2 K 17 M comprised in Khasra No. 9/12/2/1/1 (1 K 2 M), 12/2/2 (1 K 15 M) whereas the suit titled as Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal, Khasra No. 19/12/2/2 is not the subject matter of dispute. It is not disputed before me that in the suit titled as Sohan Lal v. Suraj Bhan, evidence has been concluded whereas in the suit titled as Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal, evidence has yet to be concluded. It is further not disputed before me that in the suit titled Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal, one Jora Singh is defendant No. 2. From this angle, it can be said that the parties are different in the suit titled as Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal. Leaving aside the addition of one party or the other in one suit. The order of consolidation can be set aside on the short ground that only a part of the land is same in both the suits. Moreover, the stages of both the suits are different. In all probability, the suit titled as Sohan Lal v. Suraj Bhan is likely to be decided earlier as the evidence stands concluded in this case. In view thereof, there is no reason as to why the decision in the suit titled as Sohan Lal v. Suraj Bhan must wait till suit titled as Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal is ripe for arguments. If the decision in Sohan Lal v. Suraj Bhan has got any bearing upon the suit titled as Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal, the same would be given due credence by the trial Court. If the decision in the suit Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal is not dependent on the decision made in the suit titled Sohan Lal v. Suraj Bhan, the trial Court would be at liberty to record its independent opinion and in that situation the question of rendering two contradictory judgments would not arise. The case looked at from any angle, the order of consolidation cannot be upheld on any count.

(2.) In the light of the observations made above, the order of consolidation is set aside. The trial Court would proceed in the two suits independently. No order as to costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on March 20, 1990.