1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2299/2008 (Ram Chander Vs. Kailash Chand & ors.) Date of Order :: 10th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.R.R.Nagori for the petitioner ... Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 04.02.2008 as passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to consolidate the two suits pending with it. Learned counsel the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. M/s Jaypee Rewa Cement: 2004 (2) Civil Court Cases 459 (SC) and the decisions of this Court in Shabir Ahmed Khilji Vs. Mehar M. Sadique and others: 2004 (1) Civil Court Cases 449 (Rajasthan) and Shikhar Chand Vs. Suresh Chand & another: 2008 (1) Civil Court Cases 10 (Rajasthan) and submitted that for the basic similarity of the subject matter of two suits relating to the same property, it is in the interest of justice that the suits are consolidated. Learned counsel has also referred to the order as passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur on 13.03.1995 (Annex.11) in these matters allowing an application moved under Section 24 CPC for transferring the two suits to the same Court. 2 There is no quarrel with the fundamentals of the principles as discernible from the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner that complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables their consolidation for trial and decision. However, while passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has referred to the features of involvement of different parties in the two suits and about dissimilarity of the causes of action and the reliefs claimed in two suits filed at different point of time; and the leaned Trial Court has been of the opinion that consolidation would not be conducive to the just determination of the disputes and may be even recording of the evidence would be difficult and the entire consideration would be thrown in hotch-potch. There does not appear any reason to interfere with the impugned order on the basis of and with reference to the order as passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur on 13.03.1995 transferring the two suits to the same court on the considerations that Kailash Chand and Bherulal are parties common to the two suits, and the property involved in the two suits is also the same; and the learned District Judge observed that similar factual and legal questions being involved, it would be just and proper that the suits be tried by the same court so that separate decisions are not rendered. 3 True it is that the suits appear to be relating to the same property and may be some of the parties are common yet, for the difference in the relief as claimed in the earlier suit for perpetual injunction and later one for declaration and mandatory injunction involving other parties too, the very same reasons that prevailed with the learned District Judge to transfer the suits to one court could not ipso facto have been applied for the purpose of consolidation. The learned Trial Court has yet taken care while passing the impugned order to set the proceedings in the manner that the trial of the two suits would be taken up simultaneously and the decision would also be rendered on the same day in both the suits; and has issued necessary instructions to the Reader of the Court concerned. Having regard to the overall circumstances, the approach of the learned Trial Court cannot be said to suffering from any illegality or irregularity; and there does not appear any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK