IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 441 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 Narayan Dass ...Petitioner. Versus Ajay Kumar & others ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge (oral) The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., dated 17.01.2025, whereby an application filed by the present petitioner under Section 151 CPC, seeking consolidation of Civil Suit No. 14 of 2022, titled Narayan Dass vs. Ajay Kumar and another, and Civil Suit No. 144 of 2022, titled Ajay Kumar and another vs. Narayan Dass & others, was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 14 of 2022 before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., seeking 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from causing obstruction to the right of access road leading to the house and land of the plaintiff, further from removing or diminishing the right of lateral support to the suit land of the plaintiff by way of cutting, digging, or carrying out excavation work on the land. Further, the plaintiff sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the debris piled upon the approach road of the plaintiff, to restore the lateral support by constructing a retaining wall of reasonable strength, and to hand over vacant possession of the encroached land to the plaintiff. 3. It was further prayed that, during the pendency of the suit, if the defendants succeeded in causing further obstruction to the approach road and the right of lateral support to the suit land, a decree of mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants No. 1 and 2. 4. The said suit was duly contested by the present respondents/defendants No. 1 and 2 by filing written statement, a copy whereof has been placed on record at page No. 24 of the paper book. 5. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff, which was partly allowed, whereby the present respondents were restrained 3 from further encroaching upon the suit land till the disposal of the main suit. 6. The respondents also filed an independent Civil Suit No. 144 of 2022, titled Ajay Kumar & another vs. Sh. Narayan Dass & others, before the very same Court. In the said suit, the respondents/plaintiffs prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference over the suit land in any manner and from obstructing the plaintiffs or their agents or servants from undertaking work over the suit land. The said suit was filed by the present respondents against plaintiff Narayan Dass and four other persons. 7. The present petitioner contested the said suit by filing written statement. Along with the suit, the respondents filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and consequently, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 16.11.2022, allowed the said application, whereby the present respondents were permitted to carry out repair work of the retaining wall within their own land without encroaching upon or causing any damage to the property of the petitioners/defendants, and were further directed not to cause any obstruction in the use of the passage by the petitioners/defendants while constructing the said retaining wall. 8. In Civil Suit No. 44 of 2022 the learned trial Court had framed the following issues on 20.07.2023:- 4 1. Whether the plaintiff has got a legal, natural right of easement of lateral support from the land of the defendant, which is being enjoyed by him since the time immemorial openly and peacefully, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants are causing obstruction to the right of access to the road, to the house and land of the plaintiff by cutting, digging and excacation etc., as alleged? OPP. 3. If issues No.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP. 4. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP. 5. Relief. 9. In Civil Suit No. 144 of 2022 the learned trial Court had framed the following issues on 30.11.2023:- 1. Whether the defendants without any right, title and interest are causing unlawful interference over the suit land since 26.09.2022, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is answered in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 10 of the C.P.C? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is causing obstruction in the approach road existing from the suit land to the house of the defendants, as alleged? OPD. 5. Relief. 5 10. An application for consolidation of both Civil Suit Nos. 14 of 2022 and 144 of 2022 was filed by the present petitioner. The said application was duly resisted and contested by the respondents. 11. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 17.01.2025, dismissed the said application on the ground that the basis for consolidation of civil suits lies in an application under Section 10 CPC. It was further held that both the civil suits are based on separate premises and different causes of action, and that, at this stage, Section 10 CPC does not appear to be applicable. Hence, the application for consolidation was dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 13. Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, as passed by learned trial Court, is erroneous and liable to quashed and set-aside. He further submits that after allowing the application both the Civil Suits Nos. 44 of 2022 and 144 of 2022 be consolidated and be tried together in order to avoid conflicting judgments. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhinav Goel, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.3. have defended the impugned order and they submit that 6 there is no perversity and illegality in the order. They further submit that the present petition has been filed just to harass the present respondents. Therefore, the present petition may be dismissed. 15. Admittedly, both the parties have filed independent civil suits. The present petitioner has filed Civil Suit No. 14 of 2022, whereas the respondents have filed Civil Suit No. 144 of 2022. A perusal of the issues framed in both the suits clearly clinches the entire controversy and reveals that the dispute inter se between the parties is interlinked. Though learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has vehemently contended that there is no need or necessity to consolidate the matters, yet the same does not merit acceptance. 16. However, keeping in view the nature of the controversy between the parties, who are admittedly neighbours, this Court is of the opinion that no harm or prejudice would be caused to the respondents in case both the civil suits are directed to be consolidated and tried together by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The pleadings, the interim order, and the issues demonstrate that the dispute between the parties is interlinked and requires adjudication by the same Court in a common trial. Even otherwise, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, as it has invoked the provisions of Section 10 CPC, which is not applicable to the present case. 7 17. This Court is in agreement to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that instead of inviting conflicting judgments both the suits can be tried together to resolve the issue. Even otherwise, the dispute in hand is similar and the facts of both the suits, are touching each other. No prejudice shall be caused to either party in case both the suits are clubbed together. This Court is of the considered opinion that it will pave the way to the learned Trial Court to adjudicate the controversy more effectively. 18. Consequently, after setting aside the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court dated 17.01.2025 the present petition is allowed, Civil Suit No. 14 of 2022, titled Narayan Dass Vs. Ajay Kumar and another and Civil Suit No. 144 of 2022, titled Ajay Kumar and another vs. Narayan Dass & others are ordered to be consolidated. 19. It is further directed that after the consolidation, learned trial Court shall decide the cases together and to take them to logical end in accordance with law. 20. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of, pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge May 18, 2026 (Nisha)