--1-- C.M.P. No. 358 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 358 of 2023 ---- Bipin Bihari Pandey, aged about 66 years, son of Late Kedar Pandey @ Kedar Nath Pandey, resident of Station Road, Daltonganj, PO and PS – Daltonganj, District – Palamau .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. Krishna Ram, son of Ram Bilas Ram 2. Ram Jabit Ram, son of Dewan Ram, both are residing at H.P. Gas Godown, Redma, Tola – Bhimgara, PO and PS – Daltonganj, District - Palamau 3. Shyam Bihari Pandey 4. Ras Bihari Pandey 5. Murari Pandey, all are sons of Late Kedar Pandey @ Kedar Nath Pandey and resident of Station Road, Daltonganj, PO and PS – Daltonganj, District – Palamau .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate :- Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 & 2 :- Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, Advocate :- Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate ---- 04/15.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. 2. It has been pointed out that the other opposite parties are the proforma opposite parties. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) – V, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.142 of 2012 whereby the petition dated 08.01.2016 filed by the petitioner for amalgamation of Title Suit No.141 of 2012 --2-- C.M.P. No. 358 of 2023 with Title Suit No.142 of 2012 has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with proforma opposite parties filed the Title Suit No.142 of 2012 against the principal defendants/opposite party Nos.1 & 2 for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs have valid right, title and interest over the suit land and also for a decree for removal of illegal and unauthorized construction made by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 over the suit land through process of the Court. He further submits that the relief sought for in Title Suit No.141 of 2012 and further contended that the pleading and evidence of Title Suit No.141 of 2012 are the same and both the suits are similar, as such both may kindly be amalgamated. He submits that the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order and the subject matter of both the suits are similar, as such the said order may kindly be set aside. He relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills versus Jaypee Rewa Cement reported in (2004) 3 SCC 85 wherein paragraph No.12 it has been held as under :- 12. The two suits ought not to be tried separately. Once the suit at Rewa has reached the court at Visakhapatnam, the two suits shall be consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision. The trial court may frame consolidated issues. The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the court flowing from Section 151 CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the civil court has inherent power to --3-- C.M.P. No. 358 of 2023 make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. The evidence having been recorded, common arguments need to be addressed followed by one common judgment. However, as the suits are two, the court may, based on the common judgment, draw two different decrees or one common decree to be placed on the record of the two suits. This is how the trial court at Visakhapatnam shall proceed consequent upon this order of transfer of suit from Rewa to the court at Visakhapatnam. On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside and both the suits may kindly be directed to be amalgamated. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 submits that in Title Suit No.141 of 2012 the defendant No.1 is contesting the suit while other proforma defendants are own relation of plaintiffs. Dhanwanti Devi claims the land and house on the basis of sale deed executed by Amarnath Choubey. In Title Suit No.142 of 2012, defendant Nos.1 & 2 Krishna Ram and Ramjabit Ram are contesting defendants, they claim the land on separate sale deed executed by Amarnath Choubey and Pramod Choubey respectively. He submits that in these suits --4-- C.M.P. No. 358 of 2023 proforma defendants are own relative of the plaintiffs and in another case the defendants are different. He further submits that the cause of action of both the suits are different. He further submits that in Title Suit No.141 of 2012 six of the plaintiff witness has already been examined and certain documents have also been executed. He submits that the pleadings are also different. On this ground, he submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the said order. 6. The learned Court has passed the order considering that the cause of action in both the suits are different and in Title Suit No.141 of 2012 six witnesses and documents have already been examined and exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff. In the case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills versus Jaypee Rewa Cement (supra) relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it has been held that consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. However, what has been discussed here-in-above it transpires that the defendants in both the suits are different, the cause of action is also not similar and pleadings are also said to be different, as such the learned Court has rightly passed the said order. This petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/