HARGOVIND SINGH @ CHANNI SARDAR Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Har Govind and Balveer Singh against the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by learned additional District Judge, Fast Tack No.2, Alwar by which their application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for consolidation of suits one filed by petitioner and another by respondent No.2, was rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that learned trial court has even though given'a finding that disputed property with regard to two suits are the same and the parties are substantially same and yet he has declined to consolidate two suits on the premise that their nature is different. It is contended that while petitioners have filed the suit for specific performance on the strength of agreement to sell, entered into by Late Kailash husband of Smt. Shashi with them, Smt. Shashi Sharma has subsequently sold this property to Shri Rakesh, who has now filed a separate suit for permanent injunction. Both the parties claimed that they are in possession of the disputed property. In the suit filed by petitioner, Smt. Shashi is arrayed as defendant whereas Shri Rakesh Kumar has filed a suit against the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that originally the suits were filed in different courts, but now the suit filed by respondent having been transferred to the same court and thus both the suits are pending in the same court, they are pertinent to same property and the dispute is almost the same. Both the suits are, therefore, required to be consolidated to avoid conflicting judgments, multiplicity of litigation and to save precious time of the Court. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in M/s. Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement, 2004 AIR(SC) 1687and judgment of this Court in Shikhar Chand v. Suresh Chand & Anr., 2008 1 CivCC 10 .

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that in the suit filed by respondent No. 1 -Rakesh Kumar, Smt. Shashi Sharma is not a party whereas in the suit filed by both the petitioners Hargovind Singh and Balvinder Singh have been impleaded as party defendant. It cannot be said that parties are the same, besides this the nature of the dispute is the same, which is one of the criteria for consolidation of the suit. Learned counsel in support of this arguments relied on judgment of this Court in Vishnu Kumar v. Smt. Sohni Devi & Ors., 1995 2 RajLW 634. Learned court further submitted that judgment of Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner is distinguishable from the present one, therein the dispute was on interpretation of Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code , on the doctrine of sub judice and in that case nature of both the suit was same.