IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Substitution App. No. 5578 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No. 863 of 2008 (M/S) 1. Har Prasad S/o Late Shri Madan Lal R/o Village Laksar Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar. 1/1 Rekha Rani W/o Harprasad 1/2 Sachin, S/o Harprasad 1/3 Nitin, S/o Harprasad 1/4 Samar, S/o Harprasad minor represented through natural guardian Smt. Rekha Rani, W/o Harprasad R/o Village Laksar, Pargana Manglore Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Sarvan Kumar S/o Late Shri Madan Lal R/o Village Laksar Pargana Manglore Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Smt. Bohati Devi Widow of Madan Lal R/o Village Laksar, Pargana Manglore Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ………Petitioners Versus Mahendra Singh & 4 others. ….Respondents. Shri Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants. 2. This is application No. 5578 of 2008, for substitution of legal heirs of deceased/petitioner No. 1- Harprasad. 2 3. Application is within time and supported by affidavit. Substitution application is allowed. 4. Amendment is incorporated during the course of the day. 5. Also, heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the writ petition. 6. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.02.2008, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge, Jr. Div., Laksar), in suit No. 225 of 2006. 7. It appears that there are three suits pending before the trial court i.e. suit No. 60 of 2005, suit No. 224 of 2006 and suit No. 225 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners (plaintiffs) pleaded that all the three suits, relate to the same subject matter. Attention of this Court is drawn to Rule 1 Order IV- A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (U.P. Amendment), which provides that when two or more suits are pending in the same court, and the court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may by an order direct their joint trial whereupon all such suits may be decided upon the evidence in all or any of such suit. The impugned order shows that the application 27C, moved on 3 behalf of the plaintiffs, for consolidation of the suits, has been rejected on the ground that one suit relates to injunction, while the others relate to recovery of damages. 8. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, and after going through the copies of the pleadings, filed with the writ petition, this Court is of the view that ground mentioned by the trial court for rejecting application 27C, is not in consonance and in the spirit of Rule 1 Order IV-A C.P.C. Merely for the reason that relief sought in the suit is different, the prayer for consolidation, cannot be rejected. From the impugned order, it is clear that subject matter of the property in dispute and the parties, are same. 9. Therefore, this petition is summarily disposed of quashing the order dated 07.02.2008, passed on application 27C, by the trial court. Said application stands allowed. Trial court shall proceed with the joint trial of Suit No. 60 of 2005, suit No. 224 of 2006 and suit No. 225 of 2006, making suit No. 60 of 2005, as a leading case. (Stay application No. 3019 of 2008, also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:10.09.2009 Sweta 4