Civil Revision No. 2841 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2841 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.05.2009. Baldev Narang and others Petitioners Versus Anju Mangla ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Ajit Tewari, Advocate for the petitioners ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plea raised by defendants-petitioners for consolidation of two indicated civil suits ( (bearing Nos. 222 of 2008 and 223 of 2008) not having found favour with the learned Trial Court (which declined it vide order dated 1.5.2009), the defendants- petitioners are in revision. The commonness of parties is not in controversy. In both the cases, the party opposite had filed two suits on the basis of two agreements both dated 8.1.2007. Inspite of the above noticed commonness, the learned Trial Court accepted the resistance offered by the plaintiff-respondent to the plea for consolidation raised on behalf of defendants-petitioners by making the following observations:- “After hearing the rival contentions raised by counsel for Civil Revision No. 2841 of 2009 -2- **** both the parties and after meticulous analysis of the case file, it is manifestly clear that subject matter and consideration in both the cases are different. No doubt, agreement to sell between the same parties entered on the same day but in both the cases, suit properties are different and even the sale consideration is also different. Thus, the plea of defendants that all the ingredients as required for consolidation of suit have been completed, in both the cases, is merely a figment of imagination. From the reply submitted by plaintiff, it reveals that Defendants only to avoid cross-examination of the witnesses, moved six applications, on the same day under different provisions of CPC. The conduct of the defendants clearly shows that they do not want to conduct cross-examination on the PWs which has already been deferred on different dates i.e. on 5.12.2008, 01.1.2009, 02.2.2009, 10.2.2009, 10.3.2009, 04.4.2009 and lastly fixed for 8.4.2009, which shows that defendants want to prolong the matter.” Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendants- petitioners, argues that the consolidation of both the suits shall not only avoid multiple recording of evidence but also enable the Trial Court to record one particular view simultaneously. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the view advocated on behalf of the defendants-petitioners. A plea for consolidation of different civil suits could well be conceptualized (and accepted too) if there was an absolute Civil Revision No. 2841 of 2009 -3- **** commonness on point of identity of parties, the suit property involving in both the suits and also the causes of action. In this case, there are two different agreements between the parties to the cause. The subject of those agreements i.e. land in issue is also different. Obviously, there could not be two agreements with regard to the same land. The only commonness, thus, is of the parties and the date on which both the agreements were executed. These two facets of commonness are not sufficient to justify a plea for consolidation. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners points out that the recording of evidence at different points of time would enable the party opposite to cover up the lacunae noticed in the case in which the evidence is recorded first. That is not such a big legal hassle which must invite a finding on point of compulsive consolidation. The two suits are pending in the same Court. The Trial Court would be well advised to ensure that the evidence in both the trial is recorded on the same date. This fact could be notified to the parties/learned counsel for the parties before hand. The Court could further ensure that neither the parties would not be able to obtain adjournment, on one pretext or the other. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. May 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Revision No. 2841 of 2009 -4- ****