HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 43 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Along with the supplementary affidavit, a certified copy of the formal order has already been brought on record. The defect now appears to have been removed. Accordingly, the office is directed to allot a regular number to this revision. 2. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Prabhakar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff, and Mr. Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel, assisted by Ms. Smriti Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. 3. The sole question arising in the present revision relates to the order passed in Transfer Application No. 554 of 2025 (Amit Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Vandana Rani and Others) on 02.09.2025 by the learned District Judge, Meerut. The revisionist/plaintiff filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Meerut, praying that either Original Suit No. 1280 of 2014, Shri Amit Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Vandana Rani and Others, be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, where Original Suit No. 104 of 2008, Shri Amit Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Vandana Rani and Others, is pending for adjudication, or that Original Suit No. 104 of 2008 be transferred from the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) (FTC), Meerut, where Original Suit No. 1280 of 2014 is pending, so that both suits may be decided together by one and the same court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist/plaintiff submitted that the revisionist had instituted Original Suit No. 104 of 2008, Shri Amit Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Vandana Rani and Others, claiming ownership over Plot Nos. 23, 24, and 25, the details whereof are annexed with the plaint of the said suit. The revisionist/plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of Plot Nos. 23 to 26, which were allegedly wrongly sold by Atul Gupta in Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dilip Kumar Goswami, Prabhakar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pankaj Dubey Amit Kumar Agrawal .....Revisionist(s) Smt. Vandana Rani And 3 Other .....Opposite Party(s) favor of respondent nos. 1 and 2, namely, Vandana Rani and Rajkumar. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, Smt. Vandana Rani executed a sale deed in respect of the same Plot Nos. 24 and 25 in favor of Kapil Garg, which is hit by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, Amit Kumar Agarwal filed Original Suit No. 1280 of 2014 challenging the sale deed executed by Smt. Vandana Rani in favour of Kapil Garg, as the subject matter was already pending in Original Suit No. 104 of 2008. Therefore, an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the learned District Judge, Meerut, praying that both cases be transferred to one court for proper adjudication on merits and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 contended that the application was filed merely for transfer of the suits from one court to another, as there is no provision for consolidation of the suits. 7. The submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff, as well as the reference contained in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, indicate that "in compliance with the order concerned, a report dated 29.01.2026 was submitted to the effect that some part of the disputed property is common in both suits, though there is a difference in the area involved." 8. The submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff are also in consonance with the report submitted by the concerned authority. Prima facie, it appears that the property in dispute in both suits is substantially the same, inasmuch as Plot Nos. 23 to 25 are the subject matter of Original Suit No. 104 of 2008, and during the pendency of the said suit, defendant no. 1, Smt. Vandana Rani, sold Plot Nos. 24 and 25 in favour of Kapil Garg, who is defendant no. 2 in Original Suit No. 1280 of 2014. In view thereof, both suits ought to be decided by one court. 9. It is an undisputed fact that both suits are pending before courts of Senior Division. Hence, Original Suit Nos. 104 of 2008 and 1280 of 2014 ought to be decided by one court . Hence O.S. No. 1280 of 2014 is hereby transferred to Civil Judge Senior Division , and both the Suits shall be decided by Civil Judge, Senior Division Meerut. 10. As per Order IVA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the said amendment in Uttar Pradesh provides that: "Consolidation of cases — Even where two or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same court, and the court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may, by order, direct their joint trial, whereupon all the suits and proceedings may be decided upon in all or any such suits or proceedings." (vide U.P. Act No. 57, 1976, Section 5, with effect from 1.1.1977) CLRED No. 43 of 2026 2 11. In view thereof, the application for consolidation has to be decided by the concerned court where both the original suits are pending and not by any other court. Whereas both the original suits bearing Nos. 104 of 2008 and 1280 of 2014 have already been transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Meerut. Hence, the revisionist/plaintiff may file an application under Order IVA of the C.P.C., 1908 for the consolidation of both cases before the learned Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Meerut. If such an application is filed, it may be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within 30 days from the filing of the said application for the consolidation of both suits under Order IVA of C.P.C., 1908. 12. With these observations and directions, the present civil revision stands disposed of finally. May 6, 2026 M. Tarik CLRED No. 43 of 2026 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad