RAM BABU SWAMI Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 15th July, 2008 passed by the Additional district Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur district, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 83/2007, whereby their application under Section 151 CPC to consolidate their suit with suit no. 123/2007 has been dismissed.

(2.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that property in dispute in both the suits is one and same, therefore, both the suits ought to have been consolidated and trial court committed an illegality in rejecting their application to consolidate both the suits for the purpose of adjudication. No one is present on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent despite service of notice. So far as counsel for the respondent no. 2 is concerned, he submits that respondent no. 2 is the father of the petitioners, who is not a contesting party in the present writ petition and he has no objection in case the writ petition is allowed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned order while rejecting the application of the petitioners. It appears that suit no. 123/2007 was filed by respondent no. 1 phool Chand against Nathu Ram, father of the petitioners in the trial court on 28th July, 2005 for specific performance of the agreement dated 28th June, 2005, possession and permanent injunction, wherein both the parties have led their evidence and the suit is fixed for final arguments. Subsequently, second suit no. 83/2007 was filed by present petitioners for declaration, cancellation of agreement and permanent injunction in the trial court on 27th february, 2007, which is at preliminary stage.