IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTIAL Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2005 (M/S) With Stay Petition No. 11065 of 2005 Badri Prasad, S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal, R/o Village Kaulagarh, Pargana Kendriyadoon, District Dehradun. ...............Petitioner. Versus Commissioner and Six others. .................Respondents. Sri Deepak Sharma, advocate holding brief for Sri Ram Ji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1 and 2. Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. Date:- November 06, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Deepak Sharma, advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Ji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- i. issue a writ, order or direction it the nature of certiorari calling for the records and setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.07.2005 (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition) and order dated 18.7.2003 (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition), passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp at Dehradun-respondent no.2 respectively and also allowing the application dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition), filed on behalf of petitioner, in suit no. 36 of 2001- 2002 Badri Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. ii. pass any other and further orders, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner. By the impugned order the application to consolidate the cases has been rejected by the Trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in both the suits, controversy is to be decided whether the petitioner Badri Prasad has inherited the land in dispute being a nephew of the deceased Surajbhan or the Smt. Parwati Devi alleged widow of Surajbhan has inherited the land in dispute? Suit no. 95 of 1991-92 was filed by the petitioner pertaining to land of Village Prempur Mafi, Pargana Kendriyadoon, District Dehradun and Suit No. 96 of 1991- 92 was filed by the petitioner pertaining to the land of Village Kaulagarh on the same ground, i.e., claiming to be legal heir of the deceased late Surajbhan. The controversies to be decided in both the cases are the same that who will inherit the land, either the petitioner, or Smt. Parwari Devi by succession? The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in suit are situated in different village, therefore, the suit cannot be consolidated and there was an order not to proceed in Suit Nos. 95 of 1991-1992 and 96 of 1991 for the trial court, cannot be accepted. It is made clear that there was no order passed in Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2005 (Badri Prasad Vs. Commissioner, Garhwal Division and others) for the Revisional Court not to decide the revision. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived that in Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2005 proceeding of the suit was stayed and stayed and during the pendency of the suit the Revisional Court has decided the revision. In both the case the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the application to consolidate the cases while the controversy in both the suits are the same. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the application to consolidate the cases stands allowed ant the learned Trial Court is directed to decide both the suits together after giving adequate opportunity of adducing the evidence and hearing to the parties. Interim order dated 12.12.2005 passed by this Courts stands vacated. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Dated: 6.11.2008 (B.S. Verma, J.) RMY