^.'.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILABPUR WR3TPETITION (227) No. 3011 OF 200^ PETITIONERS^ Smt. Sarla Maheshwari aad anr. Versxss RB8PONDBNTS Godawari Malieswari and ors, ORDER Postfor-5 -7-2009 ^.;''.-. Sd/- N.K. Aganval Judge ^' .^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETSTION (2271 No. 3011 OP 2009 PETITIONBRS RESPONDBNTS sV- 1, Sm.t Sarla Maheshwari, Wd/o Late Naiidkishore Malieshwari, age 42 years 2. Ku. Sneha Maliesliwari D/o Late Naiidkishore Malieshwad, age 16 years (miuor) through her laother Snit. Saiia Maheshwad, age 42 years Both R/o 45 Vikas Nagai', RaJB.aiidgaon Versiss 1. Godawad Malieswari, Wd/o late Satyaiiarayao. Maheswari, aged about 72 years, R/o Gaiij Liiie, Rajnaiidgaoii (CG) 2. Prateek Maheswari S/o Late Nandkishore Maheswad (mmor) fhrozigh his uucle Manoj Maheswari., S/o late Salyan.arayaii Maheswad, R/o Gaaj Line, Rajnaadgaon (GG) (Now Major of age 19 years 3. State Baak of India, Maio. Bxunch fhrough Branch Maaager, State Bank of India, Rajnaxidgaon (CG) 4, United Westeni Baiik Ltd. Braach, Rajnaadgaon, through Braiich Maiiager, United Westem Bank Ltd. Rajnaadgaou (CG) Shri Auoop Majumdar, Advocates for fhe petitioners. Shri Stiniesh Bajaj, Adv. for the respondent No. l.and 2. SBLHOKrBLE SHHI JUSTICB N.K. AGARWAL ORDER (3 -7-2009) Wifli ffae consent offhe parties, heard finally. 2. The iiistant petition is dirccted agaiast the order dated 8-9" 2008 passed ia Civil Suit No. 4-A/2000 by District Judge, Rajnaiidgaon whereby fhe application under Section 151 of C.P.C. for consolidation of Civil Smt No. 6A/2002 ffled by Prateek Maheshwad/respondent No. 2 herem agaiast Smt. Saria Maheshwari/petitioxier herein. and also again.st plamtiff/ respondent No. 1 Godawad Maheshwad was allowed and consoMdation order regarduig both the suits has been passed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Civil Suit No. 4A/2000 (ia which imipugned onler has beeu passed), has been filed by Snxt. Godawar Devi/ respondent No. 1 hereia again.st fhe petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 4 claimio.g fhe reliefofdeclaratiou to the effect fhat tiie petitioners ao.d respondents No. 1 and 2 are haviag equal shares ia the movable ao.cl ioixaovable properties left by late Nandkishore Malieswari as described ia para 4 of the plaiat, also to the effect fhat Will deed dated 15-12-1998 is iuvalid. A fiullier reMef has beeii songht claiming Rs. 21,00,623/~ from fhe defendants in the suit. In pai'a 5 ofthe suit, description ofiaovable property has been given. In the otih.er siiit i.e. CivU Suit No. 6A/2002, which was preferred by respondent No. 2 against fhe petitioners aad respoudent No. 1, aad two niore persons, fhe reUef of declaration to the effect that fhe petitioners and respondents No. 1 aad 2 are entitled for equal share i.e. l/4th each in. fhe property raovable aiid tmjo.ovable left by Naad Kishore as described WL Para 6 of the suit aiid share ia fhe aniount deposited ni the bank is also claiiaed. 4. Shri Aiioop Majuradar, leamed counsel for the petitioners subniits 'tliat the petitioners had categorically adinitted l/4th share of Pmteek Maheshwan ia Civil Suit No. 6-A/2002 in all fhe properdes and, therefore, ftie only dispute fhat reniabis for adjudication ia that suit is about tlie rate of iaterest which the petitioners will pay to Prateek Maheswari on account ofwithdrawal of amount deposited iii ICICI baok and order of consoMdatiou would, m fact, prejudice the iaterest of the petitiouers, Next subinission made by Shri Majum.dar is that in both the cases, properties aad parties are not saoie, issues are also not same, aiid therefore, fhe order of consolidatiou ofcasesis bad ia. the eyes of law. ReUance is placed in the case of B.S. Bhaeavaa Siaeli aad others -v- Smt. Sharada Bai reported m AIR 1990 Kamataka 222; ^\ ^ 5. Per coutra, Shri Suniesh Bajaj, leanied coiinsel appearing for the respoudents No. 1 & 2, supported fhe order aiid submitted that learaed trial Court has rightly passed the mipugued order. 6. I have heard leam.ed counsel for the parties aiid also perused the record. 7. A bare perasal of both the plaints would reveal that both the suits have been instituted clamiing l/4th share each beteveen the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 aiid 2 in Hiovable and iimnovable property left by late Nand Kisfaore Malieswad and alisiost barrmg soine itenis, identical relief has been claimed in botii fhe suits. In both the suits, the cause ofaction alleged is that the petitioners aad respondents No. 1 azid 2 are haviag l/4th share in the movable and iiniaovable property left by late Naadldshore Maheswari aad in consequeuce, the amount deposited in baak by late Nandkishore Malieswari is also claimed. Therefore, it is uot correct to say that the cause ofaction, property ia dispute^ parties involved, rcMefclamxed in both the suits are not similar. In fact, the core question iavolved in bofh the suits revolves arouiid the question whether fhe petitioners aad respondents No. 1 aad 2 are havnig l/4th share ia the property left by late Nan-dldsliore Maheshwari an.d also whether the WiU deed dated 15-12-1998 is invalid aiid iaeffective. The inaia contesting parties isi both the suits are petitioners aad respoudents No. 1 aiid 2. It is also evident froin the circuinstaiices of fhis case fhat the evidence adduced would be more or less siaiilar, fherefore, it would be advaatageous in the long run aad even econoiiiically beneficial for the parties to have the niatter tded io. consoUdated nianner. It is also not iu dispute fhat both the suits are pending before fhe saoie court involviiig common question oflaw. 8. Leamed Siagle Judge of Orissa High Court in tlie case of Motilal Chuailal Rathor -v- Paai Bai aad others reported m AIR 1992 Orissa 155 in para 3 aad 5 obseryed fhat where bofh the suits are io. fhe sam.e court ia which laatter ia issue is directly and substantially sazne in both the suit and also bofh the suits are Inniiuiiiirt. between the saine parties, public poUcy of early finality would call for exercise of iaherent powers under Section 151 to direct aaalogous hearmg. 9. Leamed trial Court after a close scrutiay of both the suits aad relyiag upoii the jiidginent of Patn.a High Court in the case of MJrs. Bo^aro &^am£isr Ltd. ~v^^^^^^ reported m AIR 1973 Pat. 340 and judgment of Rajasthaa High Court m the case ofStateof Rajasthaa -v- Motiram reported m AIR 1973 RAJ, 223 has iavoked its iaherent jurisdiction an.d order of consolidation has rightly been passed. The petitioners have failed to point out any illegality leadiag to xaaiiifest injustice to the petitioners. 10. It is well settled priuciples oflaw fhat this Court, in exercise ofits supervisoxy jurisdiction underArticle 227 ofthe Constitation of India, should refraiii itself froni iaterfermg wifh the order passed by the Court below except ia such cases where per^ersity, iUegalily or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of fhe record, which is not iii the present case. 11. Therefore, in aiy considered opniion, this petitiou has no Bierit. The saoie is Uable to be aiid is hereby disxmssed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge