IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 134 CR-5926-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.08.2026 Amit Kumar Aggarwal . . . . Petitioner Vs. Tulsi Ram and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner [through VC]. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samalkha, District Panipat, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for clubbing/consolidation of Civil Suit No. CS-415-2018 titled ‘Tulsi Ram v. Amit Kumar and others’ with Civil Suit No. CS-153-2019 titled ‘Amit Kumar Aggarwal v. Tulsi Ram and others’ has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the suits arise out of the estate of the same testator, namely late Sh. Rameshwar Dass, involve substantially the same parties and pertain to rival claims founded upon testamentary documents allegedly executed by the same person. It is argued that common questions of fact and law arise for adjudication and, therefore, both suits ought to have been consolidated so as to avoid duplication of evidence, inconsistent findings and conflicting decrees. According to learned counsel, the trial Court has adopted an unduly technical approach while rejecting the application. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5926-2026 2026:PHHC:108457 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, this Court finds no ground to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction. 4. A perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order shows that though both suits relate to the estate of late Sh. Rameshwar Dass, the scope of controversy in the two proceedings is not identical. Civil Suit No. CS-415-2018 instituted by Tulsi Ram seeks declaration of ownership on the strength of Will dated 12.01.2004 and also seeks a declaration that the subsequent Will dated 14.02.2005 is illegal, null and void. On the other hand, Civil Suit No. CS-153- 2019 challenges the Will dated 12.01.2004 and the mutation sanctioned thereon, while asserting rights flowing from the subsequent Will dated 14.02.2005. Thus, both testamentary documents are directly in issue, but the nature of reliefs claimed, the burden of proof and the respective causes of action are not entirely co-extensive. 5. The learned trial Court has also recorded that both suits had reached the stage of defendants' evidence, when the application for consolidation was filed. In Civil Suit No.153 of 2019, three defence witnesses had already been examined, whereas in Civil Suit No.415 of 2018, two defence witnesses had been examined. Consequently, the application came to be filed at a highly belated stage, after substantial progress had already been made in both proceedings. 6. It is well settled that consolidation of suits is essentially a matter of judicial discretion intended to facilitate expeditious disposal and avoid conflicting decisions. Such consolidation is neither a matter of right nor is it to be ordered mechanically merely because some issues or parties are common. The Court must examine whether the suits involve substantially identical issues, whether common evidence would be led and whether consolidation would advance the cause of justice without causing prejudice to either party. Where the suits have substantially progressed independently or where consolidation itself is likely to delay the adjudication or prejudice the parties, the Court would be justified in declining such a prayer. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5926-2026 2026:PHHC:108457 7. In the present case, the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for declining the request. It has noticed that although the commonality between the two suits is the testator, the suspicious circumstances surrounding each Will are required to be examined independently. The evidence relatable to each Will cannot necessarily be treated as common evidence merely because both documents are alleged to have been executed by the same testator. The Court has further noticed that both suits are already pending before the same Court, thereby considerably reducing the possibility of contradictory findings. 8. Significantly, the petitioner allowed both suits to proceed independently for nearly six to seven years and moved the application for consolidation only in the year 2025, when the recording of evidence had substantially concluded. Such unexplained delay is a relevant circumstance while considering the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction for consolidation. Entertaining the prayer at such an advanced stage would inevitably reopen procedural issues and impede the early disposal of both suits rather than advance the object of consolidation. 9. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate. Unless the order impugned is shown to suffer from patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest failure of justice, interference is unwarranted. The impugned order reflects due application of mind to the relevant considerations and cannot be said to suffer from any such infirmity warranting interference. 10. Consequently, finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the learned trial Court, the present revision petition is dismissed. 11. However, since both suits arise out of rival claims concerning the estate of the same testator and involve overlapping questions regarding the validity of the testamentary documents, it would be appropriate, in the interest of judicial consistency, that both suits are heard as far as practicable by the same Presiding Officer and that the judgments therein are pronounced simultaneously or within a reasonably proximate period, so as to obviate the possibility of inconsistent findings. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5926-2026 2026:PHHC:108457 12. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 07.08.2026 JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document