HARINARAIN CHOUDHARY Vs. RAM ASISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the petitioners. They have moved this Court in revision against an order, dated the 21st April, 1954 of the Munsif of Barh, rejecting their application for consolidation of Title Suits Nos. l to 3 of 19,52, and hearing them together as analogous cases.

(2.) There was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the petitioners and the opposite party, which was decided on the 22nd January, 1951, against the opposite party. To this proceeding, opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 5, along with two others, were parties as second party; and the defendants, who are petitioners before this Court, were first party. Section 145 proceeding was in respect of plots Nos. 503, 504, 505, 506, 460 and a portion of 455, After the adverse order in the aforesaid proceeding against them, the opposite party, on the 23rd January, 1952, filed three different suits; opposite party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1952, in respect of plots 505 and 455; opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1952, in respect of plots 506 and 460 and opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1952, in respect of plot No. 503. The present petitioners are the defendants in all the three suits. These three suits were instituted originally in the Court of the Munsif at Barh, but, later on, they were all transferred to the Court of the Additional Munsif at the same place on different dates under orders of the District Judge, Patna. But, subsequently, all these three suits were re-transferred to the Court of the Munsif at Barh by the District Judge, Patna. Title Suit No. 1 of 1952 was transferred on the 18th April, 1953, Title Suit No. 2 of 1952 on the 9th December, 1953, and Title Suit No. 3 of 1952 on the 1st April, 1954. All these three suits were, therefore, in the same Court, that is, in the Court below, only on the 1st April, 1954.

(3.) In Title Suit No. 1 of 1952, the defendants, on the 21st April, 1954 filed a petition for analogous trial, and this petition was rejected on the same date, on the ground that plaintiff No. l had already been examined, and it would not be proper and convenient to try the suits analogous. It is against this order that the petitioners have come up in revision.