IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No.355 of 2023 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Jammula Siva Shankar@ J. Siva Sankar Rao …. Appellant -versus- Jammula Kesav Rao and others …. Respondents For Appellant - Mr. S.K. Dash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Dash, Advocate For Respondents - Mr. H. Mohanty, Advocate, Respondent No.2 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :14.05.2026:: Date of Judgment :20.05.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment. 2. The appellant in this 2nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and appellant before the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018. The respondents in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and respondents before the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018. 3. The suit of the plaintiff(appellant) in C.S. No.344 of 2012 was a suit for permanent injunction. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 is his father and the defendant no.2 to 4 are his three sisters. After the death of his elder brother in a road accident in the year 1982, he(plaintiff) is the only surviving son of the defendant no.1. His three sisters, i.e., defendant nos.2 to 4 are married and they are residing in their respective in-laws houses. The properties described in the schedule of the plaint along with a two Storied building thereon are the suit properties. He(plaintiff) is a businessman and he is running the business of Hardware and Sanitary Appliances under the name and style as M/s. Padma Iron and Hardware Stores at Berhampur. Out of the funds accumulated by him(plaintiff) from the earnings of his business, he(plaintiff) purchased the vacant suit site from one Prafulla Chandra Panda in the year 1999 on dated 23.06.1999 for a consideration amount of Rs.75,000/-, but, as a mark of his love and affection towards his father, at his instance, the deed of sale of the suit properties was executed in the name of his father by the vendor Prafulla Chandra Panda. After purchasing the suit properties, he (plaintiff) made construction of a Two Storied Pucca Building on the suit properties incurring loan from LIC along with his income from his business. He(plaintiff) constructed such Doubled Storied Pucca Building over the suit properties spending his entire earnings and he(plaintiff) developed the family status. He(plaintiff) has two daughters. His wife expired on dated 04.04.1999. So, he(plaintiff) took the burden of his old parents including the defendant no.1 along with his two daughters. The sisters of the plaintiff and their respective husbands tried to grab the ancestral properties of the plaintiff managing to execute the deed of transfers in their favour from his old father, i.e., defendant no.1 blackmailing his father(defendant no.1) creating hateful attitude towards the plaintiff. All his sisters, i.e., defendant nos.2 to 4 managed to execute the sale deeds from his father. They(defendant nos.2 to 4) also managed to execute the sale deed from his mother in respect of the property, which was in the name of his mother only in order to debar him(plaintiff) from the said properties. In spite of that, they (defendant nos.2, 3 and 4) were not satisfied, but, they(defendant nos.2 to 4) instigated/incited his father to sell the suit properties and the building standing thereon only in order to defeat the interest and possession of the plaintiff illegally from the same, although, he(plaintiff) is in possession over the suit properties and building thereon by purchasing the same from his own income in the name of his father(defendant no.1) and he(plaintiff) has constructed the Doubled Storied Pucca Building on the same and he is residing in that building, in which, the defendants have no interest. So, he(plaintiff) issued a notification on dated 20.02.2010 in the daily newspaper, i.e., “Dainik Asha” intimating the general public not to purchase the suit properties and the building standing thereon from the defendant no.1, as he(plaintiff) is the owner and in possession over the same. He(plaintiff) also gave written information to the local Police that, the defendants are trying to dispossess him(plaintiff) forcefully from the suit properties by selling the suit properties and the building illegally. The building on the suit properties is the only residential house of the plaintiff and in case, the defendants succeed in selling the suit properties and the building standing thereon illegally, then, he(plaintiff) will be simply thrown to the road along with his two young daughters. For which, the plaintiff approached the learned trial court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 with a prayer to restrain the defendants not to disturb in his possession in the suit properties in any manner whatsoever depriving his right therein, as he had contributed his all earnings for purchasing the suit properties and constructing the building and also prayed for restraining his father, i.e., defendant no.1 from making any kind of alienation such as sale, mortgage, gift etc. in respect of the suit schedule properties and the building standing thereon either in favour of the other defendants or in favour of any other person and to pass such other order/orders, as the Court deems fit and proper. 4. Having been noticed from the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff, though, the three sisters of the plaintiff, i.e., defendant nos.2 to 4 had made their appearance, but, they(defendant nos.2 to 4) had not chosen to contest the suit by filing any written statement, for which, they(defendant nos.2 to 4) were set ex parte as per the order dated 12.03.2014 passed in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012. The father of the plaintiff, i.e., defendant no.1 contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff taking his stands therein in a nutshell that, the plaintiff is his 2nd son and his 1st son expired in the year 1982 in a road accident. He(plaintiff) is a rich businessman of Berhampur since his father’s time and he is doing business of iron rod and building construction and maintenance related materials. He has been running such business since the year 1964 in the name and style as Padma Iron and Hardware Stores at Badabazar and subsequently shifted his shop to Sanabazar at Berhampur. He(defendant no.1) had purchased the suit properties in the year 1999 in his name from one Prafulla Chandra Panda paying entire consideration amount out of his own income and he has also constructed a Doubled Storied Pucca Building on the suit properties out of his own income. The suit properties have already been mutated to his name and after mutation he has been paying land revenue and house tax for the same in his name. The suit properties and the building thereon is under his exclusive possession and he(defendant no.1) is the exclusive owner of the same, in which, the plaintiff has no interest and possession. No part of the consideration amount of the suit properties was paid by the plaintiff at the time of its purchase from Prafulla Chandra Panda. The plaintiff is claiming his title and possession in the suit properties and building falsely. He(defendant no.1) has given his own properties to his three daughters, i.e., defendant nos.2 to 4 voluntarily out of his love and affection to them. He(defendant no.1) had engaged the plaintiff in his business in the year 1987, but, he (plaintiff) taking the advantage of his entry into the business of the defendant no.1, he(plaintiff) tried to control the entire business of the defendant no.1 coming in contact with his bad associates. For which, he(defendant no.1) was compelled to keep all the papers and valuable documents of his business under his control and custody without handing over the same to the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff started torturing him(defendant no.1) and his wife. Therefore, the progress of his business started falling down. As, after the death of the eldest son of the defendant no.1 in a road accident, the plaintiff is their only son, for which, they(defendant no.1 and his wife) did not desert him(plaintiff) from the building of the suit properties and allowed him(plaintiff) to stay in that building as before, but, the plaintiff did not abstain from torturing him(defendant no.1) and his wife and threatened them(defendant no.1 and his wife) to drive them from the building of the suit properties and to file vexatious suit against him and his daughters. As, he(defendant no.1) is the exclusive owner and in possession over the suit property and the building thereon, in which, the plaintiff has no interest and possession, for which, he (defendant no.1) cannot be restrained from enforcing his lawful rights and ownership in dealing with the suit properties and the building in any manner. For which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed against him(defendant no.1). 5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the plaintiff and defendant no.1(son and father), altogether four numbers of issues were framed by the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and the said issues are:- I S S U E S (i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action to file this suit? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from alienating such as sale, mortgage, gift etc. of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants or any other person(s)? (iv) To what other relief(s), the plaintiff is entitled? 6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012, he (plaintiff) examined him as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 10. On the contrary, in order to defeat / nullify the suit of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1(father of the plaintiff) examined two witnesses from his side including him(defendant no.1) as D.W.1 without proving any document on his behalf. 7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned trial court answered all the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant no.1 and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned trial court in all the issues in favour of the defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 of the plaintiff on contest against the defendant no.1 and ex parte against the defendant nos.2 to 4, but, without cost as per its judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 and 28.08.2018 respectively assigning the reasons that, “Though, it is the admitted fact that, both the plaintiff and the defendant no.1(son and father) are residing in the suit building and both the parties are in possession over the suit properties, but, it is forthcoming from the pleading and evidence of the parties that, the sale deed as well as the RoR stand recorded in the name of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 has also claimed his title over the suit property in his written statement. Therefore, although the plaintiff is in possession over the suit property, but, the defendant no.1 asserts title thereto and the plaintiff apprehends threat of dispossession from the suit property. As the sale deed and RoR of the suit property stand in faovur of the defendant no.1, prima facie, a right of defendant no.1 is made out and it is presumed that, the defendant no.1 is the owner of the suit property and in such a case, the plaintiff cannot restrain the real owner of the suit property, unless it is held that, the plaintiff is the real owner of the suit property. Therefore, the question of title cannot be decided in the suit for injunction simpliciter and the plaintiff is required to amend the plaint to incorporate the claim for declaration of title and possession. As in the present case, the plaintiff has not amended the suit to incorporate the relief of declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property being fully aware of the claim of the defendant no.1 over the suit property, then, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case between Anathula Sudhakar vrs. P. Buchi Reddy(dead) By LRs. and others : reported in AIR 2008 (S.C.) 2033 as mentioned above, a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable and the plaintiff not being the real owner cannot injunct the real owner, i.e., defendant no.1 from dealing with the suit property in any manner. So, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant no.1. Hence, the plaintiff has got no cause of action to bring the suit and the plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief.” 8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 passed by the learned trial court, he(plaintiff) challenged the same preferring the 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018 being the appellant against the defendants arraying them(defendants) as respondents. 9. After hearing from the learned counsel for the appellant(plaintiff) and the learned counsels for the respondent nos.2 and 4(defendant nos.2 and 4), the learned 1st appellate court dismissed to that 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018 of the appellant(plaintiff) concurring/confirming the above findings and observations made by the learned trial court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as per its judgment and decree dated 26.06.2023 and 10.07.2023 respectively. 10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the dismissal of the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 as well as the 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018 of the plaintiff/appellant, he(plaintiff/appellant) challenged the same preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellant against the defendants arraying them(defendants) as respondents. 11. When, during the pendency of the 2nd appeal, the respondent no.1(defendant no.1 and father of the plaintiff) expired, then, this 2nd appeal continued on the representation of the respondent nos.2 to 4(defendant nos.2 to 4), as they(respondent nos.2 to 4) and the appellant/plaintiff are the legal heirs and successors of the deceased respondent no.1 being his son and daughters. 12. This 2nd appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law, i.e.,:- (i) Whether both the courts below under the present facts have erred in law by rendering a finding on title, which ought not to have been recorded in a suit for injunction, dehors and necessary pleadings and appropriate issue framed regarding title giving the opportunity to parties to lead evidence in that regard? 13. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the appellant(plaintiff) and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2(defendant no.2), as the respondent nos.3 and 4 did not choose to participate in the hearing of his 2nd appeal. 14. When, during the course of hearing of this 2nd appeal, learned counsels of both the sides submitted that, for the self-same suit properties and the building standing thereon, the respondent no.2(defendant no.2) in this 2nd appeal has filed a suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 in the court of learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur being the plaintiff against the appellant arraying him(appellant) as defendant praying for the decree of eviction from the suit properties and building thereon and a CMP No.1915 of 2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 arising out of that suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 is subjudice in the High Court on being filed by the respondent no.2(plaintiff in C.S. No.68 of 2022), for which, the entire records of that CMP No.1915 of 2022 was called for to this record for its perusal before passing the judgment in this 2nd appeal, as the said matter, i.e., CMP No.1915 of 2022 between the respondent no.2 and the appellant is in respect of the self-same suit properties between them, i.e., between the sister and brother. 15. In order to assail the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court, the learned senior counsel for the appellant(plaintiff) contended that, when the learned trial court as well as learned 1st appellate court dismissed the suit of the appellant(plaintiff) vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 for injunction, only on the ground of non-seeking the relief of declaration of title amending the plaint of the plaintiff applying the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court between Anathula Sudhakar vrs. P. Buchi Reddy(dead) By LRs. P. Buchi Reddy(dead) By LRs. and others : reported in AIR 2008 (S.C.) 2033 and when the suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the defendant no.2 for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit properties is pending/subjudice in the court of learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam and when in the said suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022, the title of the plaintiff in the suit properties and the building thereon can very well be dealt with and when, in the meantime the father of the plaintiff, i.e., defendant no.1 has expired leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 to 4 as his successors, then, in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the parties, the suit filed by the plaintiff vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 is required to be remitted back to the court, in which, the suit filed by the defendant no.2 vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 is subjudice for deciding both the suits vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and C.S. No.68 of 2022 analogously in order to avoid the conflicting findings as well as multiplicity of litigations between the parties after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018. 16. To which, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 objected contending that, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and RFA No.86 of 2018 are not erroneous in any manner, as the plaintiff has no prima facie title and possession in the suit properties and the building thereon on the basis of the sale deed and revenue record thereof in favour of the defendant no.1. For the dismissal of this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2(defendant no.2) relied upon the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Anathula Sudhakar vrs. P. Buchi Reddy(dead) By LRs. and others : reported in AIR 2008 (S.C.) 2033(Para No.13.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but, his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff remains under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. (ii) In a case between V.S. Ramakrishnan vrs. P.M. Muhammed Ali : decided in Civil Appeal Nos.8050-8051 of 2022 decided on dated 09.11.2022 that, The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that, the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same(Para No.4.1) (iii) In a case between Chandrabhan(deceased) through LR representatives and others vrs. Saraswati others : reported in (2022) 20 SCC-199 that, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100—Second Appeal— Maintainability—Findings of facts arrived at by first appellate court—Interference with by High Court by framing questions, do not fall within parameters of “substantial questions of law”. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2(defendant no.2) also contended that, when there is no material in the record to show that, the findings and observations made by the learned trial court and learned 1st appellate court in their respect judgments and decrees for the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff/appellant are not erroneous in any manner, then, the question of interfering with the same through this 2nd appeal does not arise. 18. It is the specific findings in Para Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 for the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff that, “Though, it is the admitted fact that, both the plaintiff and the defendant no.1(son and father) are residing in the suit building and both the parties are in possession over the suit properties, but, it is forthcoming from the pleading and evidence of the parties that, the sale deed as well as the RoR stand recorded in the name of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 has also claimed his title over the suit property in his written statement. Therefore, although the plaintiff is in possession over the suit property, but, the defendant no.1 asserts title thereto and the plaintiff apprehends threat of dispossession from the suit property. As the sale deed and RoR of the suit property stand in faovur of the defendant no.1, prima facie, a right of defendant no.1 is made out and it is presumed that, the defendant no.1 is the owner of the suit property and in such a case, the plaintiff cannot restrain the real owner of the suit property, unless it is held that, the plaintiff is the real owner of the suit property. Therefore, the question of title cannot be decided in the suit for injunction simpliciter and the plaintiff is required to amend the plaint to incorporate the claim for declaration of title and possession. As in the present case, the plaintiff has not amended the suit to incorporate the relief of declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property being fully aware of the claim of the defendant no.1 over the suit property, then, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case between Anathula Sudhakar vrs. P. Buchi Reddy(dead) By LRs. And others : reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 as mentioned above, a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable and the plaintiff not being the real owner cannot injunct the real owner, i.e., defendant no.1 from dealing with the suit property in any manner. So, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant no.1. Hence, the plaintiff has got no cause of action to bring the suit and the plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief.” 19. It appears from the copy of the plaint in C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.2(defendant no.2) against the plaintiff in the court of the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam annexed in the record of CMP No.1915 of 2022 that, she(respondent no.2) has filed the suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 against the plaintiff arraying him(plaintiff), as defendant praying for passing the decree of eviction against the defendant(appellant in this 2nd appeal) from the said suit properties and the building thereon stating in the said plaint that, “the defendant thereof (appellant in this 2nd appeal) being her brother is residing in the suit house illegally, though she is the exclusive owner of the same, as she has purchased the said suit properties and the building thereon from her father(respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in this 2nd appeal) on dated 09.10.2018 through RSD No.10611 806107 and after execution and registration of the said sale deed in respect of the suit properties and building in her favour, her father(respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in this 2nd appeal) as well as her mother expired on dated 02.05.2021 and 04.05.2021 respectively. In Para No.9, in the plaint of that suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022, she(respondent no.2/defendant no.2 in this 2nd appeal) as plaintiff has specifically stated that, after the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.344 of 2012, he has preferred the 1st appeal vie RFA No.86 of 2018 before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam and the said 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018 is subjudice/pending.” 20. From the aforesaid averments made in Para No.9 of the plaint in C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.2, it is going to show that, the sale deed in respect of the suit properties and building thereon was executed by the defendant no.1 on dated 09.10.2018, i.e., during the pendency of the 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018 before the learned 1st appellate court. It appears from the record that, in the hearing of the said 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018, the respondent no.2 had participated through her learned counsel without disclosing about her so-called purchase to the suit properties and the building thereon from her father, i.e., defendant no.1 through sale deed vide RSD No.10611 806107 dated 09.10.2018. Neither the defendant no.1 nor the defendant no.2 had disclosed about the aforesaid sale deed No.10611 806107 dated 09.10.2018 said to have been executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2 in the hearing of the 1st appeal before the learned 1st appellate court. Nowhere in the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court in RFA No.86 of 2018, it has been stated about the aforesaid so-called transfer of the suit properties by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no.2 during the pendency of the said 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018 through RSD No.10611 806107 dated 09.10.2018. 21. The said suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.2 against the appellant for eviction is subjudice/pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam. When, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 on the ground that, the suit of the plaintiff for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable, unless there is amendment in the plaint of the plaintiff incorporating the claim of declaration of title, as the defendant has disputed to the claim of the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties and when in the subsequent suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the defendant no.2 vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 against the plaintiff for eviction, the title of the parties in respect of the suit properties can very well be dealt with and when, the said suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 has been filed by the defendant no.2 against the plaintiff admitting the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties and the building thereon, as she has prayed for the decree of eviction against him(plaintiff) and when the plaintiff and defendants are brother and sister respectively being the kin relatives and when the pleadings of the parties in both the suits vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and C.S. No.68 of 2022 are similar, then at this juncture, in order to avoid the conflicting of findings/judgments as well as for the avoidance of inconvenience and multiplicity of litigations between the parties, both the suits vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and C.S. No.68 of 2022 are required to be decided by the same and one court after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court in the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and RFA No.86 of 2018 respectively remitting the matter vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 to the court, in which, the suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the defendant no.2 against the plaintiff is pending in respect of the self-same suit properties and building. The conclusions drawn above finds support from the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Shijo Antony vrs. Sebastian Joseph : reported in 2009(3) Civil Court Cases(Kerala)-655 that, Consolidation of suits. Common defence set up by defendant in all the three suits. To save precious time of Court and to avoid inconvenience to the parties, consolidation of three suits allowed. (ii) In a case between Hargovind Singh @ Channi Sardar vrs. Rakesh Kumar : reported in 2010(2) Civil Court Cases(Rajasthan)- 69 that, Consolidation of suits. Suit for specific performance. Subsequent suit for permanent injunction filed by the subsequent vendee. Two suits sufficiently and substantially similar. Petitioner’s suit transferred to Court trying respondent’s suit. Both the suits ordered to be consolidated and tried together. (iii) In a case between Parwati Bai vrs. Kriparam : reported in 2010(1) Civil Court Cases(M.P.)-509 (D.B.) that, Consolidation of suits. Court by exercising of its inherent power can order consolidation of suits. Consolidation of suits may be directed in order to avoid conflicting judgments and to save valuable time, energy and money by clubbing the cases involving common question together. (iv) In a case between Om Parkash vrs. Siri Bhagwan and others : reported in 2014(4) Civil Court Cases(P&H)-831 that, Both the suits are in respect of the same property, but, both the suits are at different stages. Not appropriate to consolidate both suits. However, both the suits be tried by one and the same court. (v) In a case between Guru Prasad Mohanty and others vrs. Bijoy Kumar Das : reported in 57(1984) CLT-477 that, Where two suits before the same parties, involve common question arising between them, the court has inherent power to direct two suits be tried together. (vi) In a case between Motilal Chunilal Rathor vrs. Pani Bai and others : reported in AIR 1992 Orissa-155 that, Issues in two suits are common. Both suits are filed in different pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. Court having higher pecuniary jurisdiction can order for hearing of the suits analogously. 22. Here in this suit/appeal at hand, when the pleadings in both the suits vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 and C.S. No.68 of 2022 between the parties are common and sufficiently / substantially similar and the pleadings of the parties in both the suits are emerging common issues and when in spite of contesting / participating in the hearing of the 1st appeal vide RFA No.86 of 2018, the respondent no.2 has not uttered/whispered a single word that, she is the lis pendens purchaser of the suit properties through RSD No.10611 806107 dated 09.10.2018 from her father(defendant no.1) and when the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground of non-seeking the relief for declaration of title amending his plaint and when the title of the parties can very well be dealt with in the subsequent suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.2(defendant no.2), then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 is required to be decided afresh analogously with the suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 pending in the court of the leaned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam by remitting back the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 to the court, in which, the suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the defendant no.2(respondent no.2) against the plaintiff(appellant) for the self-same properties and building is pending after setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court in C.S. No.344 of 2012 and RFA No.86 of 2018 respectively for no other reason, but only, in order to avoid the conflicting findings and multiplicity of litigations between the parties and to decide all controversies relating to the suit properties between the parties in both the suits for all times to come by the same and one court. 23. So, as per the discussions and observations made above and under the above changed circumstances and developments as discussed above, there is some merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant(plaintiff) for sending the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 to the court of learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam, wherein, the suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 filed by the defendant no.2 is pending for its fresh trial and disposal analogously with the suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022. 24. Therefore, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant(plaintiff) is to be allowed in part. 25. In result, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant(plaintiff) is allowed in part on contest. 26. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court in C.S. No.344 of 2012 and RFA No.86 of 2018 respectively are set aside. 27. The suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 is transmitted to the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam, wherein, the suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022 is pending to decide the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 afresh analogously with that suit vide C.S. No.68 of 2022. 28. The learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam is directed to try and dispose of both the suits as per law as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to transmit the records of the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 to the court of the leaned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam sending the copies of this judgment to the said court as well as to the court of the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam. The parties to this 2nd appeal are directed to appear in the court of the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Berhampur, Ganjam on dated 01.07.2026 after Summer Vacation for the purpose of receiving directions of the said court as to the further proceedings of the suit vide C.S. No.344 of 2012 on the basis of the directions made in this judgment. The records of CMP No.1915 of 2022, which was called for to this 2nd appeal be returned to its original file. (A.C. Behera), Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 20th of May, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Designation: Personal Assistant