APHC010573282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Adapa Subash Chandra Bose Palisetti Kamakshi Devi and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3245/2024 Adapa Subash Chandra Bose ...PETITIONER AND Palisetti Kamakshi Devi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3299] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3245/2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. For the order proposed to be passed, notice to the respondents are dispensed with. 3. The petitioner is the defendant No.1 in OS.No.10 of 2022 filed by the respondent No.1 herein (plaintiff). Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are also the defendants in the said suit along with the present petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed OS.No.86 of 2017 for partition with respect to the plaint schedule property, in which all the present respondents are party defendants. The said suit was pending in the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. He submits that in the said suit, the present respondents have also filed written statement setting up the plea of Will in her favour. Respondent No.1 is the sister of the petitioner. He submits that during the pendency of OS.No.86 of 2017, respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.10 of 2022 for declaration with regard to the same plaint schedule property based on the said Will. He submits that the said suit is also pending in the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. He further submits that since the parties are same, property is same and the issue involved is also same in both the suits, the petitioner filed I.A.No.220 of 2022 in OS.No.10 of 2022, under Section 10 of CPC to stay the proceedings of subsequent suit of OS.No.10 of 2022. The said application has been rejected on the ground that though the parties and subject matter in both the suits are same but substantial question of title over the property and its declaration is sought in OS.No.10 of 2022 which is not sought in OS.No.86 of 2017 though the issue with regard to title of plaintiff in OS.No.10 of 2022 is framed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the property in both the suits is same, the parties are same and issue involved is also same, in view of Section 10 of CPC proceedings of subsequent suit of OS.No.10 of 2022 deserves to be stayed. Therefore, the order under challenge suffers from illegality. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submission. From the impugned judgment also, it is evident that the parties in both the suits are same, the property is same. From the submissions advanced as also from the judgment, it is also evident that substantially the issue involved is the same, as in partition suit, the claim of the respondent is based on the Will and in OS.No.10 of 2022, the suit for declaration, her case for such declaration is also on the same Will. Consequently, in the view of this Court, instead of asking for stay of O.S.NO.10 of 2022 it would have been appropriate to ask for joint trial by consolidating both the suits. 7. In Chittivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent 1 (2004) 3 SCC 85 powers of the Court flowing from Section 151 of the CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the Civil Court has inherent power to 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. It was also observed that 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. 8. Para No.12 of Chittivalasa Jute Mills (supra) reads 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 of the CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the Civil Court has inherent power to 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 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. 9. In Chittivalasa Jute Mills (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court thus held that substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision. 10. In P.P. Gupta vs. East Asiatic Co, Bombay2, the Allahabad High Court considered the expression "shall not proceed in any suit" in Section 10 C.P.C. and held that these words were intended to bar the separate trial of any suit in which the matter in issue was also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties in the same court or in any other court. But these words did not apply to the simultaneous hearing of a later and an earlier suit, after consolidation of the two. Section 10 was not intended to take away the inherent power of the Court to consolidate in the interests of justice in appropriate cases different suits between the same parties. In P.P.Gupta (supra), the Allahabad High Court thus held that the power of consolidation of suits is inherent and Section 10 does not take away that power. 11. In K.K. Gupta vs. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gonda and others3, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, held that Section 10, CPC deals with the stay of suits on the ground that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties and at the same time Order IV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (as applicable in State of U.P, which was added vide U.P.Act 57 of 1976) prescribes that when two or more 2 1959 SCC OnLine All 245 3 1999 SCC OnLine All 1009 suits or proceedings are pending in the same court, and the court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may by order direct their joint trial, whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits or proceedings. In K.K. Gupta (supra), the previous judgment, in the case of Anandan Gupta v. Navin Agarwal4 was also considered in which it was held that those provisions expressly empower the trial court to consolidate the suit if it was expedient in the interest of justice to direct a joint trial. A joint trial would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 12. Both the suits deserve to be decided at the same time. The suits are pending in the same Court. Learned Court therefore instead of rejecting the application, ought to have directed for joint trial. 13. Keeping this CRP would serve no useful purpose. 14. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the learned Court of IX Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam to order for joint trial of OS.No.10 of 2022 and OS.No.86 of 2017, by fixing same date. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 10.01.2025 AG 4 AIR 1984 All 387 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3245/2024 Dated: 10.01.2025 AG