Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Bhagwanta Jain vs Rajendra Kumar on 23 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27835
1 MP-5279-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 23 rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5279 of 2025
SMT BHAGWANTA JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Martand Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners .
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 08.08.2025 passed in RCSA No.74/2018 by the 10th Additional Judge, Indore, whereby the application under Order 2 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC for consolidation of suits has been rejected.
2. Undisputed facts are that petitioners and respondent No.3 - Yogendra Kumar had instituted a suit bearing No.RCSA/74/2018 on 22.12.2017 against the respondents for partition of property possession interim mean profit and recovery of amount.
3. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 had also instituted a suit on 17.10.2016 against the petitioners and respondent No.3 for partition of immovable property and permanent injunction.
4. The petitioners moved an application under Order 2 Rule 3 of CPC for consolidating both the suits and the evidence recorded be read in both the suit. Thereafter, an application under Section 151 of CPC was also filed. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 have not filed any reply and argued the case orally.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 24-09-2025 10:42:35NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27835 2 MP-5279-2025
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Trial Court ought to have directed both the suits instituted by the parties to be consolidated and heard together. Since suit property and most of the parties in both the suits are the same and the matter in issue is also the same, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation consolidation of the suits would be in the interest of justice. Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & others Vs. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel, 2013 (3) MPLJ 342 but the Trial Court ignored the obiter dicta laid down it on flimsy grounds, as not tenable in law.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. In an identical case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pooja Soni Vs. Dinesh Kumar and Others 2022 (1)MPLJ 703 faced with a similar situation wherein both the suits, the suit property and most of the parties were the same and the matter in issue was also the same and eventually to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation, consolidation of both the suits was directed. Paragraphs No.20 to 24 are relevant which runs as under :-
"20. The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits. Consolidation of suits in exercise of powers with or without consent of the parties is a phenomenon well established and in various High Courts of the country before whom question of consolidation have chosen to consolidation under inherent jurisdiction of the Court. [See Narayan v. Jankibai, AIR 1915 Bom 1 Nankoo v. Nagnur, AIR 1953 Hyd 130 (DB), Philip v. Bata Shoe Co., 1959 KLT 1346, Kali Charan Dutt v. Surja Kumar Mandal, (1912-13) 17 CWN 526].
21. The object behind consolidation of suits is to avoid multiplicity of suits or proceedings, chances of confiicting decisions on the same point, to prevent delay and to avoid unnecessary expenses. [See Bharat Nidhi Ltd. Delhi v. Shital Pra, AIR 1981 Del 251].Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 24-09-2025 10:42:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27835 3 MP-5279-2025
22. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria; (2007) 2 SCC 551 that:
"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 desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 37, paragraph 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".
23. The object of consolidation of suits is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation. These objects are not in any way in conflict with the objects of Section 10. On the contrary, consolidation of suits promotes such objects. Hence, a court has inherent power to consolidate suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue in both the suits substantially the same. Section 10 was never intended to take away the inherent power of the Court to consolidate for the interests of justice. The Court may, however, refuse to consolidate suits if it would be against public policy and encourage multiplicity of proceedings. [See Indian Bank v. Maharshtra State Co-operative Marketing Fedration, (1998) 5 SCC 69, Desh Bhushan v. Mahajan, 1997 AIHC 2530 and Anand Deep v. Ranjeet Kaur, AIR 1992 Del 87].
24. In the present case, suit property and most of the parties are the same in both suits, matter in issue is also same to some extent, so to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation, consolidation of both suits would be in the interest of justice."
8. In the present case, the relief claimed in both the suits is more or less the same. From perusal of the order of the Trial Court, it is clear that the suit land in both the suits are not same, the parties to both of them are more or less the same and the issue which is required to be decided in both the suits is the same. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 24-09-2025 10:42:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27835 4 MP-5279-2025 Court has not passed an order of consolidating both the suits. There is no specific provision in the CPC for consolidation of suits. Such a power has to be exercised only under Section 151 of the CPC. 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.
9. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to fix same date of hearing for both the cases and the same shall be heard and judgement may be passed accordingly in both the suits.
10. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
(ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE gp Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 24-09-2025 10:42:35