L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashPlaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 20.9.2010, Annexure P/9 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul thereby dismissing plaintiffs'' application for consolidation of two suits i.e. the instant suit filed by the petitioners and another suit filed by respondents alleging that properties and parties in both suits are same and similar evidence has to be led.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that parties to both suits and property involved in both suits are the same and similar evidence has to be led in both suits and therefore, in order to avoid duplicity of evidence and conflicting decisions, both suits should be consolidated. The contention although apparently attractive on first blush is in fact devoid of merit. Suit by respondents was filed in the year 2002 i.e. 8 years ago. Suit by the plaintiffs-petitioners was filed in the year 2005 i.e. 5 years ago. However, application for consolidation of the two suits was moved on 7.8.2010 only. It shows malafide intention of the petitioners. This conclusion is further strengthened by other circumstances. Evidence of respondents in the suit instituted by them has already been closed. Even in the suit instituted by the petitioners, they have already led substantial evidence. Consequently, consolidation of the two suits at this stage would not avoid duplicity of evidence in any manner. In addition to it, there is no explanation for the long delay of five years in filing the application for consolidation of the two suits. Learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to explain the said delay by submitting that earlier the two suits were in different courts and the same were got transferred to the same court and therefore, the delay occurred. The contention cannot be accepted. Even for transfer of the two suits to the same court, application was moved by the plaintiffs in December, 2008 i.e. more than three years after the petitioners had filed their subsequent suit. Even after order dated 4.4.2009, Annexure P/5 transferring both suits to one court, plaintiffs did not move application for consolidation immediately thereafter.
4. Application for consolidation of the two suits was moved by the petitioners because they had not taken certain plea in the written statement filed by them in the suit which has been instituted against them by the respondents. In order to over-come that lacuna, the petitioners resorted to this method of seeking consolidation of the two suits.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. No ground for consolidation of the two suits is made out at this highly belated stage. Moreover, if both the suits have directly and substantially the same issues, then subsequent suit filed by the petitioners would be liable to be stayed u/s 10 of the CPC and it would also depict that the revision petition is completely meritless and application moved by petitioners in the trial court for consolidation of the two suits was frivolous and vexatious and moved with malafide intention. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
