GANESHDAS Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first three Revisions have been filed against the common order dated 7-9-2001, rejecting the application of the petitioners dated 22-8-2001 to consolidate these three cases and hear them together.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to these three Revisions are that three different suits are pending and an application under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C.") for consolidation of all these three cases had been filed which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22-8-2001 on the grounds that the parties in the cases are not the same as in two suits i.e. Case No. 5/2001 and 12/2001; Ramesh Chandra is the plaintiff wherein Mangidas is the defendant in both the suits but Mangidas is defendant only in one suit and in Case No. 17/2001 Ganeshdas and Mangidas are the defendants but Vallabhadas and Ramesh Chandra are not parties therein at all; the documents on the basis of which the cases are being fought are of different dates and consolidating them would amount to misjoinder of parties and evidence. Moreso, in both these cases the plaintiffs' evidence has been recorded separately; the application has been filed when the defendants have to start recording evidence in their respective case; thus the same was filed at a belated stage.

(3.) In other four Revisions, application for consolidating the cases has been partly allowed vide impugned order dated 7-9-2001. Wherein Cases No. 10/2001 and 11/2001 have been consolidated as it was between the same parties and the documents were of the same nature. Cases Nos. 13/2001 and 14./2001 have also been consolidated as the parties are the same; however consolidation of all the four cases has been rejected on the ground that in Cases No. 10/2001 and 11/2001; Vallabhdas is not a party and in Cases No. 13/2001 and 14/2001; Ramesh Chandra is not a party. Moreso, four different suits had been filed; documents may be of the same dates; the plaintiffs had already concluded their evidence; cause of action is not the same; inconvenience has already been caused to the plaintiffs as their evidence had been recorded separately in all the suits and the application has been filed at a belated stage when the evidence of the defendant is to be recorded.