Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010088252026 2026:GAU-AS:12325 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/80/2026 PHANINDRA MOHAN DAS S/O LATE HARICHARAN DAS, R/O NO. 1 SALBARI, HOUSE NO. 102, PANCHATIRTHA PATH, P.O. AND P.S.- NOONMATI, GUWAHATI- 781020, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS PRADIP CHANDRA DAS S/O LATE HARI CHARAN DAS, R/O NO. 1 SALBARI, HOUSE NO. 102, PANCHATIRTHA PATH, P.O. AND P.S.- NOONMATI, GUWAHATI- 781020, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. B HUSSAIN, MR A H TOUFIQ Advocate for the Respondent : MR T MAZUMDAR, MR R SARKAR :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 26.08.2026 Heard Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for the sole responded. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup(M) at Page No.# 2/3 Guwahati in Transfer Misc. Case (Civil) No.38/2025. 3. Three suits, namely- T.S. 30/2019, T.S. 298/2021 and T.S. 329/2021 pending in the courts of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) are involved in this revision petition. 4. T.S. 30/2019 was filed by the present petitioner against the opposite parties praying for a declaration and for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises. 5. T.S. 298/2021 was instituted by the respondents against the present petitioner and APDCL for declaration and for permanent injunction. 6. T.S. 329/2021 was instituted by the respondents against the present petitioner for a declaration of possession and for permanent injunction. 7. The land involved in the aforesaid suits is the same. 8. It may be mentioned that T.S. 30/2019 was dismissed by the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati on 05.05.2025. 9. The present petitioner filed the application before the District Judge, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati submitting that T.S. 298/2021 pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.5 and T.S. 329/2021 pending in the court of learned Civil (Jr. Divn.) No.3, Kamrup(M) should be transferred to a single court and it would be convenient for him to contest both the cases there. 10. In order to buttress his submission, Mr. Dhar has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, (2007) 2 SCC 551. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “18. It cannot be disputed that the court has power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is Page No.# 3/3 desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 37, para 69.) If there is power in the court to consolidate different suits on the basis that it should be desirable to make an order consolidating them or on the basis that some common questions of law or fact arise for decision in them, it cannot certainly be postulated that the trying of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is something that is barred by law. The power to consolidate recognised in the court obviously gives rise to the position that mere misjoinder of parties or causes of action is not something that creates an obstruction even at the threshold for the entertaining of the suit.” 11. Mr. Dhar further relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel, (2013) 4 SCC 404. In this judgment, it was held as under: “The purpose of consolidation of suits is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses and 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. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria [(2007) 2 SCC 551].” 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 13. It is an admitted fact that the land involved in those two suits, is the same. Therefore, it will be better if the two suits are tried by the same court. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order 05.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge Kamrup(M) in Misc. Transfer (Civil) Case No.38/2025 is bad in law and stands set aside accordingly. 14. The learned District Judge, Kamrup(M), Assam, Guwahati is directed to list both T.S. 298/2021 and T.S. 329/2021 in a single court having jurisdiction for disposal. With the aforesaid direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant