IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.166 of 2024 Decided on 12th August, 2025 Nitya Nand …Petitioner Versus Shri Rajender Kumar …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Mukul Sood and Vivek Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Digvijay, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to send for the records of both the cases, Civil Suit No.97-K/1 of 2021 Rajender Kumar versus Nitya Nand pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. and is fixed for 04.05.2024 and Civil Suit No.49/2022 Rajender Kumar versus Nitya Nand pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, fixed for 01.04.2024 are heard and tried together at Shimla and consolidated in the interest of justice.” 2 2. The contention of the petitioner is that there are two Civil Suits filed by the respondent. In both the Civil Suits respondent before this Court is the plaintiff. He submits that one of the case is pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge at Shimla, whereas, the other is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Civil Judge, at Kandaghat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Civil Suits relate to different suit properties, but the parties to the lis are same and further, whereas, it is stand of the respondent-plaintiff in both the case at Kandaghat that said suit properties are joint, but, as per the petitioner/defendant the same were subjected to a family settlement and are no more joint and the parties are in a separate possession thereof. 3. In these circumstances, he submits that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, both the cases are heard together, because, if this is not done, then, different adjudications in both these matters may prejudice either of the parties in the other litigation. 3 4. Though, the prayer has been opposed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent but having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having carefully gone through the averments made in the petition, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in the facts involved therein if the petition is allowed and the cases are ordered to be consolidated and tried by the same Court. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that let Civil Suit No.97-K/1 of 2021, titled Rajender Kumar versus Nitya Nand pending at Kandaghat be consolidated with Civil Suit No.49 of 2022, titled Rajender Kumar versus Nitya Nand, which is presently pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and let both these cases be heard by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Shimla. 6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2025 (Vinod)